Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

DevilsAdvocate said:
Yeah, that will be a problem for him. That makes him a party to the crime. He started this whole thing that day. It was his idea. I said previously in this thread that Greg yelling that he was going to blow his head off is what will do him in. I still think that is the case. The jury could find some outs on the other issue if they wanted to, but that one is tough to ignore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he admitted to that to the police I remember. I think they tried to walk it back in the trial however. Travis said he didn't remember hearing it and Greg's team argued that it should have been on the phone call, but that it was never heard.

DevilsAdvocate said:
The law says it must be that the felony "caused" the death. I think in the charge it says that the felony must be a "substantial and necessary" part of causing the death. That gives the jury some wiggle room. It is one thing to sit at home and argue law on the Internet. It is another to sit in a jury deliberation room with the fate of three people in your hands.

They are human beings. They will think about what is right and wrong and just and what people deserve. They can decide whether this was a "substantial" part or not. They can talk about whether or not he was really in fear of bodily injury when the truck was moving slow and only pulling in front of him and not coming at him. And so on. It can get complicated depending on what direction jurors want to go based on how they feel.
Click to expand...

The important question is: Does the jury WANT wiggle room? It seems to be common to operate under the impression that the jury wants to let these guys off. Which, I get it, it's Georgia, etc. Beyond a reasonable doubt is all they have to be convinced of when it boils down to it.
 
The defense really doesn't have much beyond a "If we ignore everything that actually happened, we can craft a story that could have happened where my clients were innocent, and really at the end of the day isn't that enough? Sure they weren't conducting a citizens arrest, they hadn't seen Arbury commit a crime, but... I mean could like imagine if they had? Can you just judge them on that?"
 
Roddie looks like he's about to cry. To be honest, I'd be crying too if I put my life in the hands of a man whose entire performance thus far has been whining and complaining about black people every day.

This is probably the best performance Gough has made though. It's not terrible. Might be enough to get him off on the major stuff and only get tagged on some minor charges.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"He died because for whatever inexplicable, illogical reason, instead of staying where he was, whatever overwhelming reason he had to avoid being captured that day and arrested by the police."

That's a direct quote from this lady and that is functionally insane. The fact that she isn't being laughed out of court room right now is a goddamn travesty.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what line we'd expect a defense attorney to take here. When all the evidence and law come down on the side of the state the attorney can't just get up and say ******* it and walk out. They have to argue something.

In that context that sentence is not bad, really. There whole case is built around why did he run in hopes that the jury won't dwell too much on the context of the running.

The idea is to both sides it because sometimes that can work with a lot of jurors.

"They say he ran because he feared a bunch of rednecks were trying to kill him. We say it is because he was guilty of something. Who can say? All we know is when he grabbed the gun of my client my client believed his life was in danger and defended himself."

Something like that.... and more artfully put I would hope.
 
So I had it on while I'm painting a room. Did the Fauci and god thing really just happen or was I high on paint fumes?
 
I'm a bit behind. I just got through the prosecution's closing arguments. Pretty good. She mentioned that she didn't know what the heck Travis was about with seeing Arbery attack a truck on Holmes and that it is up to the jurors to decide whether they think he is telling the truth. I thought she would pounce on that harder.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, she really, really rode on that as much as she could. "Why didn't he just let these white men detain him after chasing him for over 5 minutes? He's irrational, I say!"
Click to expand...

I've spent more of my life in Brunswick Georgia than I would like. There is no reason whatsoever for a Black man to think three swamp dwellers with guns trying to run him down in pick-ups are just going to detain him. The irrational thing would to be stop and let these morons detain him.
 
Suddenly said:
I'm not sure what line we'd expect a defense attorney to take here. When all the evidence and law come down on the side of the state the attorney can't just get up and say ******* it and walk out. They have to argue something.

In that context that sentence is not bad, really. There whole case is built around why did he run in hopes that the jury won't dwell too much on the context of the running.

The idea is to both sides it because sometimes that can work with a lot of jurors.

"They say he ran because he feared a bunch of rednecks were trying to kill him. We say it is because he was guilty of something. Who can say? All we know is when he grabbed the gun of my client my client believed his life was in danger and defended himself."

Something like that.... and more artfully put I would hope.
Click to expand...

I don't like disagree entirely and I don't want to start a thing but at the end of the day that's just the "Contrarian/Devil's Advocate" thing where this idea where if you're in a room with 100 people who all agree 2+2=4 jumping on a table and arguing that it equals 5 is some vital intellectual service. Not everything has two sides.

You can go "Okay but everyone is entitled to council under the blah blah blah" and... I mean that's not wrong (and I mean that sincerely and not disingenuously) but there's a limit to how just flat out factually wrong you get to stand there and be under the idea that the law guarantees you a counter argument. If you're completely wrong the universe doesn't hand you arguments just to keep everything fair and moral.

If you're an attorney and none of the actual facts are in dispute... sorry. I don't know what to tell you. But just... making stuff up is the answer.

Basically I don't buy "The defense gets to lie and make stuff up because, I mean come on they have to mount some kind of defense!"
 
plague311 said:
The important question is: Does the jury WANT wiggle room? It seems to be common to operate under the impression that the jury wants to let these guys off. Which, I get it, it's Georgia, etc. Beyond a reasonable doubt is all they have to be convinced of when it boils down to it.
Click to expand...

I was talking in terms Greg and Roddie and their consideration of the seriousness of the crimes and the extent of their responsibility. They didn't shoot Arbery. As I said, I think they will consider that if we take the shooting out of the scenario, would we really be convicting them of serious felonies or would we be convicting them of some other misdemeanors and this is just getting trumped up to the felony level to be able to attach it to felony murder where they end up getting held responsible for Travis's actions? Even if they are guilty of the felonies, is that really a substantial part or is the shooting really all on Travis?

They will have to consider whether they are all guilty or whether Greg and/or Roddie are getting hit with more than they deserve because Travis messed up.

I think they are all guilty on all counts, but I also understand these are the types of things the jurors are going to talk about and think about. I think that is why they may not go for felony murder for Greg and Roddie, and maybe even not all of the charges (or maybe Roddie gets off if they feel like he was basically duped by the McMichaels).
 
If black people can be charged with murder because they are partners in a crime where another participant in the crime kills someone, so can Greg and Roddie.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Basically I don't buy "The defense gets to lie and make stuff up because, I mean come on they have to mount some kind of defense!"
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between lying about the evidence presented (or knowingly presenting false evidence) and arguing/speculating a conclusion based on the evidence presented. The whole defense case is that he was fleeing a crime. Which is all she's talking about here. That is what the defendants testified about.

I'm not ever going to defend the US adversarial system but if there is one then people get a defense. I mean, unless you want to effectively require the defense lawyers to be the ultimate arbiters of whether someone is allowed a defense.

That juries can sometimes be bamboozled into "both sides" thinking when one side is way, way, way weaker than the other is a problem with the legal system and/or our educational system.
 
Craig4 said:
I started to a stopped counting the number of time the defense attorney used the word belief. That seems an odd choice after the jury instructions are going to say "knowledge" of a crime. He solidified that McMichael was not making a lawful citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have much to work with. He can demonstrate all the facts and knowledge that Travis had to establish a reasonable and probable belief that Arbery committed burglary because there really isn't much. He has to show how Travis built up this belief and invite the jury to think about whether they would be forming the same beliefs in the same circumstances. Because if the juror can come to believe that Arbery was a burglar, then that juror can believe that is a reasonable and probable suspicion and meets the standard for citizens arrest. He has to build it up from beliefs because that's what Travis did and that's really all he had rather, you know, the evidence that is required for probable cause.

I find it a bit ironic that he talks about what Arbery would have done compared to a normal person and how Travis was scared of him because he wasn't acting normal. When a normal person sees a homeless person under a bridge who is maybe committing crimes or someone running down the street who possibly could have committed a crime, does a normal person go get his dad and his guns and get in the truck to go "investigate"? No. A normal person calls the police.

When a person is running down the street, is it normal to have a bunch of people in trucks yelling at him and running him into ditches? No. That's unusual behavior. That would be scary. What did Arbery do? He was watching these trucks come at him. He was waiting for them to leave him alone. He was believing that these were a bunch of rednecks who hadn't called the police and are going to lynch him in the street.
 
The prosecution called out Travis for using rehearsed talking point that repeating "totality of the circumstances". I thought that was obvious, but probably most people don't realize that when a defendant takes the stand that have rehearsed answering the questions they will be asked over and over with their lawyers.

Sheffield says he uses that phrase because that comes from his Coast Guard brain. I don't know, but I suspect that is not a hugely common Coast Guard term. But I do know that phrase comes directly from United States Supreme Court case law on the approach to determine probable cause. But I guess most jurors don't know that. If I was a juror he would have just lost me because now I would believe anything he says.
 
I don't know how the defense did not get admonished in front of the jury for the "Dirty toenails" comment. That whole last part of her summation was basically, the N-word had it coming defense.
 
An interesting commentary from Lara Bazelon on Barri Weisse's substack, the argument is that all the people gimlet focussing on the Rittenhouse trial should have been looking at this one.


Progressive America has been obsessing over the wrong case. For weeks, activists and commentators have been laser focused on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, insisting that it illustrated systemic racism when all the players were white and the verdict turned on the application of Wisconsin’s permissive self-defense law. In doing so, the public has largely ignored a gut-wrenching trial about this exact malady.

The facts in the Ahmaud Arbery case, which begins closing arguments today in Brunswick, Georgia, are straightforward.
Click to expand...


https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/progressives-have-been-obsessing
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, he admitted to that to the police I remember. I think they tried to walk it back in the trial however. Travis said he didn't remember hearing it and Greg's team argued that it should have been on the phone call, but that it was never heard.
Click to expand...

I don't buy their argument. It now seems like this is part of their plan for Travis's Big Lie.

Roddie is chasing Arbery down Holes toward Zellwood. They are in the left lane. This is where Roddie's video starts. The video shows Roddie is just before the curve. He can only see a few dozen feet around the road. Travis's truck is not visible, but it is just around that curve. Arbery is a bit further ahead and can see Travis coming down toward him in the right lane.

Roddie doesn't see Travis. Travis doesn't see Roddie. But Arbery is further ahead and he sees Travis and Travis sees Arbery. Arbery is trapped between the two trucks. That is why Arbery turns and runs back toward Satilla.

Greg is in the back of the truck. He isn't going to yell anything at this point. Travis hasn't even seen Roddie yet; Greg certainly hasn't Greg maybe didn't even see Arbery. Arbery is then running back around Roddie's passenger side when he puts the phone down. He is running as fast as he can back toward Satilla.

Travis has now come around the curve and is in front of Roddie. We see Roddie turning the steering wheel back and forth to get back into the right lane and get around Travis. Then we hear Travis go past.

Roddie goes forward to get past Travis. He drives down Holmes. He says to himself he is going to keep going. He is nearly to Zellwood and turns around and heads back toward Satilla.

Meanwhile, Travis had to wait for Roddie to get out of his lane and then goes around the curve toward Arbery. He catches up to him. He eventually passes him and parks on Holmes near Satilla.

It was when they were passing Arbery at this point that Greg yelled he was going to blow his head off. That's when Greg was when within hearing distance of Arbery. They were completely around the curve. Roddie was around the other side and driving down Holmes. There is no way his phone, at that point, would pick up Greg yelling.

There is no possible scenario that would refute Greg statement that he yelled that just because it wasn't heard on the video. If we believe Travis's lie, they weren't at that curve when the video started, so it would be on the video. If we believe the truth, Greg would not have yelled that until Travis caught up to Arbery and Roddie was around the curve driving away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom