I have no ******* clue what relevance any of his previous files have on this case, but apparently
the judge needs some time to think about it.
This does seem pretty sleazy. I watched the initial arguments for this and skimmed though some of the witness testimony. Both side seemed pretty bad.
The prosecutor seemed to be hamming it up for the camera a the public. She was getting angry and was basically arguing the whole case rather than the specific issue of allowing this evidence.
The defense was weak. He argues this evidence should be allowed because it will inform the jury on the thoughts and intentions of Arbery and he says that is central to this case. But he doesn't say why. It is relevant...because it is relevant. The defense will get to explain the relevancy in writing. My guess is that the argument will go something like this:
The defendants were performing a lawful citizen's arrest because they had immediate knowledge that Arbery had committed the crime of trespassing. They believed that Arbery may be armed because when Travis previously confronted him he reached into his waistband like he had a gun. When Travis got out of the truck to confront Arbery he took the shotgun to protect himself in case Arbery had a gun. He did not point the gun at Arbery.
Arbery attacked Travis even tough he had no reasonable belief that such force was necessary. The reason Arbery attacked when he had no reason was because he had a mental illness that caused him to unreasonably attack people when he was confronted with committing a crime.
If the jury finds that this was a lawful citizen's arrest and that Travis did not provoke Arbery, then the question is whether Arbery's attack on Travis was reasonable. Arbery's mental health and and pattern of behavior of becoming aggressive when confronted are relevant because it would inform the jury on the reason for Arbery's unreasonable behavior.
I'm surprised the defense didn't make that argument in the hearing, but maybe they can pull that together for the written response. I think the judge would have a difficult time dismissing that argument in terms of relevance.
But even if the judge determines that it is relevant, the next step is to weigh the relevance to the prejudice of the victim's character. I watched the first few: carrying a gun into a high school basketball game, shoplifting from Walmart, parking a car at the back of a park. Only in the park car case did Arbery show any aggression, and that was only after he gave some lip to the cop because it was taking forever and the cop gave him some lip back. In none of those cases did Arbery physically attack a (uniformed) arresting officer, let alone try to take their gun away.
I don't see how the gun at the game case would inform the jury of Arbery's actions on the day he was killed. He ran away. When confronted with a cop pointing a gun at him and he gave up. That's the opposite of what the defense is trying to establish. And that creates a huge amount of prejudice. When Travis previously confronted Arbery he thought he was reaching for a gun in his waist band. That's why Travis got out with a shotgun. So...Travis must have been right because Arbery was previously convicted of carrying a gun in his waist band. And they must have been right about Arbery being the neighborhood thief because Arbery was previously convicted of theft. But the defendants didn't know any of that. The reasonableness of their actions were not based on any of that. The balance of prejudice to relevance seems to quite heavily favor inadmissibility.
Courts don't like putting private mental health records into evidence. From what I heard in the court proceeding, this is mostly a form Arbery filled out with an assessment based on that form and not actually meeting him. Reliability is in question. Relevance is very questionable unless the assessment is that he suffered from extreme delusions or had a propensity to unreasonably attacking anyone who confronted him. I doubt that is the case.
I expect the judge will rule most of this inadmissible. Maybe throw the defense of couple of bones on some basically irrelevant stuff to put off any successful appeals.
