GUILTY GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #5

[wasnt_me]

If this charging decision holds & the jury follows the law as instructed, it's very likely Travis & Greg will be convicted.

Defense says ruling by judge in Ahmaud Arbery trial over citizens arrest law guts their cascommitted?

.

I'm confused. What felony was committed? What is the probable cause AA committed it? AA wasn't running that day from a past felony and no one saw him for 11 days. At that time, maybe he trespassed. That's no felony.

The defense thinks it's burglary. How is it burglary?

"To convict you of burglary, the District Attorney must be able to prove that you had the intent to commit a crime when you broke into and entered the place. Burglary requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke and entered with the intent to commit a felony inside. The defendant is not guilty of burglary if he decided to commit a crime once he was already on the property but he will be guilty of theft or another crime."

Burglary | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

How do they know his intent? He went there several times and nothing was taken. I don't get it. So AA just kept burglarizing a vacant place for six months? It is unfair that defense can speculate his intent but the prosecutor can't.

 

[sds71]

Here’s Gough saying MLK Jr was in the gallery…the poor Judge

 

[wasnt_me]

My concern is the jury doesn't know why AA kept going there. So they will assume the worst.

 

[ilovewings]

I'm confused. What felony was committed? What is the probable cause AA committed it? AA wasn't running that day from a past felony and no one saw him for 11 days. At that time, maybe he trespassed. That's no felony.

The defense thinks it's burglary. How is it burglary?

"To convict you of burglary, the District Attorney must be able to prove that you had the intent to commit a crime when you broke into and entered the place. Burglary requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke and entered with the intent to commit a felony inside. The defendant is not guilty of burglary if he decided to commit a crime once he was already on the property but he will be guilty of theft or another crime."

Burglary | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

How do they know his intent? He went there several times and nothing was taken. I don't get it. So AA just kept burglarizing a vacant place for six months? It is unfair that defense can speculate his intent but the prosecutor can't.

Let me get my violin and cry tears for the poor defense- the judge"gutted" their case -
because he made the proper ruling regarding citizens arrest law--- so if the defendants get convicted they can appeal that issue- and lose

 

[ilovewings]

You just never know with juries.Will some of the people on it have some of the same beliefs that the neighbors seemed to have?Some really seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that the black man had to have been up to no good in their view.All it takes is one.

You are so right: you never know with juries- to me this is a slam dunk against the defendants- they should be locked up for a very long time, but-----you never know how juries see it--they might actually buy into the fear of the neighborhood leading to the chase and killing of Mr. Arbery. I hope not.

 

[Smkd]

One of the most important issues argued today during the charge conference is whether or not the jury would be instructed on the possible applicability of the citizen's arrest law, and if so, the precise wording of that instruction.

Here's a portion of the discussion, with LD at her very best, IMO, dissecting the legal context & background of the phrase that citizens have a DUTY to make a citizen's arrest if they have knowledge a felony has been committed.

I just watched the video and she’s wonderful. She could be a teacher if she wanted to, she’s so articulate and it’s so easy to follow what she’s saying without getting bored.

Btw I looked up the first case she mentions, she says a bribe was paid in a distasteful way so I got curious and looked it up. They paid the bribe with an enslaved girl, a wagon, blacksmith tools and corn…

 

[Smkd]

Ahmaud Arbery trial: Defense attorney claims 'public lynching' of man accused in the killing

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, left, sits with Ahmaud Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, center, during the trial on Monday.

Defense attorney Kevin Gough called the murder trial of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black jogger, a "public lynching" of his client -- who is one of three white men accused of chasing and killing Arbery.

He claimed that the trial has been "infected by mob violence by the woke-left mob," and asked the judge for a mistrial once again. His request was denied by the judge.

Defense attorney Kevin Gough speaks during the trial.

"Third parties are influencing this case," Gough said, referring to the "spectator activity" and "media frenzy" concerning public figures attending the trial and gathering outside of the courtroom. "This is what a public lynching looks like in the 21st century."

Prosecutor Linda Dunikoski had argued that "there's absolutely no evidence here that the jurors have been influenced in any way by the first and only larger crowd that came yesterday. No evidence that they even knew it was out there."

Pastor Jamal Bryant, bottom center, leads a group prayer for to nearly 750 pastors, supporters and family of Ahmaud Arbery gathered outside the Glynn County Courthouse Nov. 18, 2021, in Brunswick, Ga.

At this point I am convinced that this is Gough's very long, very convoluted audition tape to become a talking head in right wing media. And he's making us all sit through it.

 

[sds71]

Gough’s motion

For some reason he singles out Juror 380

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/73659/Motion-for-Mistrial-Inherent-Prejudice

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/73660/Request-to-Charge

 

[Smkd]

Gough’s motion

For some reason he singles out Juror 380

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/73659/Motion-for-Mistrial-Inherent-Prejudice

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/73660/Request-to-Charge

I would bet ANYTHING that Juror 380 is the only black juror. Anything.

 

[Hope4More]

I'm confused. What felony was committed? What is the probable cause AA committed it? AA wasn't running that day from a past felony and no one saw him for 11 days. At that time, maybe he trespassed. That's no felony.

The defense thinks it's burglary. How is it burglary?

"To convict you of burglary, the District Attorney must be able to prove that you had the intent to commit a crime when you broke into and entered the place. Burglary requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke and entered with the intent to commit a felony inside. The defendant is not guilty of burglary if he decided to commit a crime once he was already on the property but he will be guilty of theft or another crime."

Burglary | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

How do they know his intent? He went there several times and nothing was taken. I don't get it. So AA just kept burglarizing a vacant place for six months? It is unfair that defense can speculate his intent but the prosecutor can't.

Here's the thing in a nutshell. The defense claims the MMs had adequate legal grounds to believe (ie, had probable cause) that AA stole the thousands of dollars worth of equipment from E's boat. Whether their belief was reasonable or not is a matter for the jury to decide.

But the jury instructions as of today kinda complicate things for the defense. Here's the judge's interpretation of the citizen's arrest law as it existed at the time of AA's killing, paraphrased.

1. Anyone can make an on the spot citizen's arrest if they see someone committing a misdemeanor.

2. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest if they have (probable cause) to believe a felony has been committed, even if they do not witness the felony, AND they can chase after that person to make the arrest, BUT they can only chase after that person immediately or very shortly after the commission of that felony.

So, even if the jury decides the MMs' suspicion that AA stole the stuff from E's boat was reasonable, neither had the legal right to chase after AA months later to arrest him for the theft.

 

[ilovewings]

I would bet ANYTHING that Juror 380 is the only black juror. Anything.

Gough is the kind of lawyer that give lawyers the bad reputation they have.

 

[Hope4More]

I just watched the video and she’s wonderful. She could be a teacher if she wanted to, she’s so articulate and it’s so easy to follow what she’s saying without getting bored.

Btw I looked up the first case she mentions, she says a bribe was paid in a distasteful way so I got curious and looked it up. They paid the bribe with an enslaved girl, a wagon, blacksmith tools and corn…

OMG. That's worse than what I imagined LD was so delicately suggesting. She really is impressive, and was throughout the trial. Her performance during the 7 plus hour charge conference was another tour de force. She represented the State singlehandedly throughout, up against the counter arguments of combined counsel for all 3 defendants & the reasoned legal interpretations of a meticulous & thoughtful judge, and she prevailed far more often than not.

 

[Smkd]

In reference to Gough's motion, page 5, 3rd paragraph of the motion talks about how juror 380 attends a small predominantly black church and appears to be related to the pastor of that church.

Also, found this page that has a profile of all the jurors New Episode Of Jury Duty Podcast: The Killing of Ahmaud Arbery: Juror Exclusion On The Basis Of Race — Part 2

Juror 380 is indeed the sole black juror. How predictable

 

[Hope4More]

Another tidbit from the charging conference. LD, when arguing for the inclusion of an instruction on revenge in the sections on use of force, said this:

The State believes Travis's encounter with AA on February 11 scared Travis, and that being scared by AA made Travis angry, as did AA returning to Travis's neighborhood where Travis believed AA did not belong. And, this anger and desire for revenge caused Travis to shoot AA (use excessive force against him), not a perceived need to self-defend.

 

[SharonNeedles]

My concern is the jury doesn't know why AA kept going there. So they will assume the worst.

So why did AA keep going there?

 

[wasnt_me]

Here's the thing in a nutshell. The defense claims the MMs had adequate legal grounds to believe (ie, had probable cause) that AA stole the thousands of dollars worth of equipment from E's boat. Whether their belief was reasonable or not is a matter for the jury to decide.

But the jury instructions as of today kinda complicate things for the defense. Here's the judge's interpretation of the citizen's arrest law as it existed at the time of AA's killing, paraphrased.

1. Anyone can make an on the spot citizen's arrest if they see someone committing a misdemeanor.

2. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest if they have (probable cause) to believe a felony has been committed, even if they do not witness the felony, AND they can chase after that person to make the arrest, BUT they can only chase after that person immediately or very shortly after the commission of that felony.

So, even if the jury decides the MMs' suspicion that AA stole the stuff from E's boat was reasonable, neither had the legal right to chase after AA months later to arrest him for the theft.

Yes,which is why they keep bringing up burglary, also a felony in GA. If they can use burglary, that's the incident 11 days prior. That's why TM kept referring to that day for "probable cause." That's why he tried to make AA sound so bad the night of Feb 11. To make his intent seem like burglary.

I dont think they should be allowed to use burglary because that implies AA's intent and that's not fair. Prosecution should be able to give another intent for AA to go in the house if defense insists on burglary.

I hope PA shows how AA went to the house, looked around and then jogged off in same direction as a pattern, to get the jury thinking it's not for burglary. I hope she shows Feb 11th video and shows how he wasn't acting like TM said.

I hope she points out that he still hadn't stole anything, even on the day he was murdered, so burglary was not his intent. He had many times to act after on burglary, but never did.

I hear you about the missing equipment, but they are also talking burglary.

 

[pseudo_hum]

So why did AA keep going there?

In the past, IMO, it was a good jogging route.

 

[missingm]

So why did AA keep going there?

It doesn't matter. As a kid I would bike over to the construction site of what would be my family's new house dozens of times.

IMO, it was the midpoint of a 5 mile run, where he could take a break and check out something cool.

 

[Hope4More]

Yes,which is why they keep bringing up burglary, also a felony in GA. If they can use burglary, that's the incident 11 days prior. That's why TM kept referring to that day for "probable cause." That's why he tried to make AA sound so bad the night of Feb 11. To make his intent seem like burglary.

I dont think they should be allowed to use burglary because that implies AA's intent and that's not fair. Prosecution should be able to give another intent for AA to go in the house if defense insists on burglary.

I hope PA shows how AA went to the house, looked around and then jogged off in same direction as a pattern, to get the jury thinking it's not for burglary. I hope she shows Feb 11th video and shows how he wasn't acting like TM said.

I hope she points out that he still hadn't stole anything, even on the day he was murdered, so burglary was not his intent. He had many times to act after on burglary, but never did.

I hear you about the missing equipment, but they are also talking burglary.

TM kept referring to Feb 11 alright, but I disagree that establishing probable cause was why his attorneys prepped/programmed him to do so. IMO the principal reason was to try to justify why both MMs grabbed guns & then wielded them against AA. Hence dwelling upon the absurd allegation that Travis saw AA on the 11th reaching into his waistband or pocket, 2 different versions, and "acting like" he maybe perhaps was armed. And also connected to T's tale of Feb 11, the unsubtle insinuations that AA was scary & dangerous & there was something mentally off about him.

The defense sprinkled in the terms burglary & break-ins at every opportunity, not just about Feb 11. One definite problem for them about burglary & Feb 11 is the video evidence of LE explicitly telling both Travis & Greg that very night that English said *he had never seen AA take anything while on his property.*

IMO, the gathered posse & LEO were equally frustrated by E's declaration, which is why what immediately followed were emphatic assertions about what other crimes AA could be accused of, criminal trespass being the clear winner. For a few minutes on that night, anyway, but not as a matter of law, which Officer Rash conceded when he wrote his police report later on that night.

Link: A pretty comprehensive & accurately reported local Brunswick GA article, including a reference to what LE told the MMs on Feb 11. Prosecutors crosses Travis McMichael, defense rests

 

[Niner]

Does anyone here have PACER? I'm trying to find out what happened with the 11/19 hearing that was supposed to happen.
Brunsick Case #2:21-cr-22 And I have trial on 2/7/22.

TIA!