Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Perhaps self-serving? And, as KSig RC (who, like Kevin, is also "in the legal field") said, not from anyone actually involved in the criminal case.
Aside from general irrelevance to elements of second degree murder, as a general rule evidence of past behavior is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in a manner consistent with that behavior in committing the crime charged. In other words, the fact that someone did something in the past is not evidence that they did it on the occasion for which they're facing charges. Exceptions to that general rule can apply if the evidence serves some other purpose, such as to establish motive or because of real similarity between the past acts and the current one. Without something else, I don't see how evidence of things he said about Mexicans 7 years ago would meet this exception.
|
Well it would seem fair to say that based on what you all have said or indicated here that unless one of you is directly involved in this case none of your POVs matters all that much either. I will put more faith into what the lawyers directly involved say or do than anyone here. The only POV that does will be the judge's and the jury's when all this comes together. In what will no doubt be two trials-Criminal and Civil.
And I should add that I place more faith in people that I know as family, friends, Brothers or business associates than unknown people in a social media setting.
Hybrid Mode
