Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

"I'm not saying he deserved to die for X, but I'm bringing X up a lot and spend all my time hairsplitting the difference between X and Y" has been way too much of this discussion.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"I'm not saying he deserved to die for X, but I'm bringing X up a lot and spend all my time hairsplitting the difference between X and Y" has been way too much of this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but the prosecution is taking down the defense's closing statements during her time, one by one.

I don't think there's any doubt that these guys are going to prison. I'd be shocked if any of them see the light of day ever again. Even Roddie is ******, he should have his best to be tried separately.
 
plague311 said:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but the prosecution is taking down the defense's closing statements during her time, one by one.
Click to expand...

The multiple 50 billion page hijacks about whether he was running or sauntering, the hairsplits about whether he was passing through, trespassing, or casing, etc.

None of that matter.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The multiple 50 billion page hijacks about whether he was running or sauntering, the hairsplits about whether he was passing through, trespassing, or casing, etc.

None of that matter.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn't around for most of that. I only rejoined the thread when the trial actually started, so I'm still not hip to that joke. Other than knowing it chaps Thermal's ass.

There aren't many hairs to split anymore.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's a bit cynical, but ain't nobody gonna want to deal with this over the long weekend. The jurors will return a decision by close of business Wednesday, assuming closing arguments end before midday Tuesday or so.
Click to expand...

Closing arguments are happening right now. Jury should start deliberating later today.

EDIT: Tardiness is what I get for leaving the tab hanging open for an hour.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Closing arguments are happening right now. Jury should start deliberating later today.
Click to expand...

My best guess is the prosecution will wrap theirs up and they'll take a 15 minute break.

The only thing that could stretch it out is there are 3 different closing arguments from the defense. So it might take until the end of the day today.
 
I'm sure the defense will still find a way to ask for a mistrial because there's a black pastor in the same zip code 28 more times.
 
Last edited:
Some back and forth now with the defense and prosecution about what they'd like to include in their closing. It looks like the judge is going to make some changes.
 
plague311 said:
Some back and forth now with the defense and prosecution about what they'd like to include in their closing. It looks like the judge is going to make some changes.
Click to expand...

Was that the issue with the slides? He is such a crybaby. He can't handle objections. He gets huffy and winey. If an objection is completely unreasonable it should be very easy to make an argument to defeat it. No need to stomp your feet and hold your breath. He already got called out by the judge once for that for disrespecting the court. I'm surprised the judge didn't call him out again here. I think the judge is getting worn out and just wants to get this over. It is almost done.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Was that the issue with the slides? He is such a crybaby. He can't handle objections. He gets huffy and winey. If an objection is completely unreasonable it should be very easy to make an argument to defeat it. No need to stomp your feet and hold your breath. He already got called out by the judge once for that for disrespecting the court. I'm surprised the judge didn't call him out again here. I think the judge is getting worn out and just wants to get this over. It is almost done.
Click to expand...

The prosecution stated that multiple slides in the defense's presentation contained images that weren't admitted into evidence. Apparently one of them is a slide of literally his own notes.
 
I had to take off for a lot of the defense's closing statements. They seem to be really pressing on the fact Arbery didn't talk to them or engage at all.

I do love how this defense attorney is talking, I mean it's doing his job, but he's portraying the McMichael's as just politely, calmly, and leisurely asking, nay pleading, with Arbery to just stop. Please, sir. Please stop for us so that we may calmly discuss this with you.

ETA: These are some really, really terrible closing arguments by the defense. He keeps phrasing things as what Travis is "allowing" Arbery to do.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
.....
ETA: These are some really, really terrible closing arguments by the defense. He keeps phrasing things as what Travis is "allowing" Arbery to do.
Click to expand...

At one point he was praising McMichael for not shooting Arbery in the back.
 
plague311 said:
No, they aren't.
Click to expand...

Zero chance the two actual murder charges (Malice Murder or Felony Murder) make it past the jury they got. They maybe, maybe get one of the "Shooting a black man without a permit on Sunday without filling out the proper forms" lesser charges, at best.

The "Keystone Cops" defense that is so entertaining to us won't make a difference.

This is a case that nobody in the legal system ever wanted to go to trial. It took a national outrage to even get us to this point. The jury is made up of the same people as elected a DA who sees a black guy gunned down in a 3 in 1 encounter and doesn't even think it warrants looking into.

I'm shocked at how many people think the McMichaels getting away with it is some shockingly unlikely scenario seeing as how they already did.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I saw a comment yesterday that the defense got mad during jury instructions when the judge explained the citizen's arrest law to the jury, and explained that it had to be an immediate response to observing a felony in progress.

The defense lawyers whined that he had just pulled the rug out from under their whole defense.

Because they wanted to base their defense on a "citizen's arrest" law that didn't exist, it seems.

Calling what they did a citizen's arrest does not make it one.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, I object!
Why?
Because it's devastating to my case!

I think we all saw this coming. I was looking forward to it. Interesting arguments. Basically like a mini ad hoc appeals case. The defense actually made out pretty good in the end.

As a result of this case, Georgia has repealed the citizen's arrest law and replaced it with a much more limited shopkeepers type citizens arrest law that is used by some other states. The older law applies to this case. Here is what is says:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Click to expand...

This law is problematic. The wording is confusing. It is very brief and doesn't cover any details. It has ambiguous terms like "immediate knowledge" and "escape".

Roddie's lawyer wanted to remove the first sentence since they will be arguing that they were arresting for a felony, not a misdemeanor. He wanted that out because that would make it easier to get rid of some of what the judge had written after that. It was a good strategy, but counsel for the McMichaels didn't seem on board. It didn't go far because the judge flat out said he was going to give the whole statute to the jury.

The next big issue was on what evidence can be used to justify a citizens arrest. The judge wanted to say it cannot be based on hearsay or information received from a third party. Defense wanted to get rid of the whole thing. That didn't happen. But they did provide some case law of things like a store manager being notified of a shoplifter and then reviewing store security videos and making an arrest based on that. That isn't quite the same as the videos in this case, but close enough that the judge allowed a change. He changed it so say an arrest is not justified based on "hearsay or unsupported statements from others alone."

The last big issue was contemporaneous arrest. I have commented on citizens arrest law in other threads. Every case I have seen the court has said citizens arrest applies only to arrest immediately after the offense in order to prevent the bad guy from getting away. In one case a guy caught someone breaking into his home, he ran him off, called the police, the police went looking for the guy, the man also went looking and found the guy about 15 minutes later. The court rule that was not lawful because too much time had passed and it was up to the police to do the arrest. In another case the court wrote at some length that whatever timeframe may be permitted, a citizens arrest is certainly not intended for someone to hear about a crime and do their own investigation and identify a probable suspect and then arrest that person. That is exactly what happened here.

Defense literally objected that this would gut their entire case. The judge gave a look like, "Well...yeah." But they were able to argue that the case law provide was for a misdemeanor where the person was present and that the law for a felony applies to a person escaping, which could mean a person who is caught weeks or months later who then tires to escape. I disagree. Escape means escaping the scene of the crime. Otherwise it really has no meaning. But thee judge relented. I don't think he would have if the law hadn't been repealed.

So he will tell the jury that an arrest must be made immediately after the offense, or in the case of a felony during an escape. That leaves it up to the jury to decide what an "escape" means. Pretty big win for the defense. I don't think they have much, but without that they would have nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom