I keep saying we should hang them; however, everyone starts screaming Klan at me. Which I find confusing since last time I checked I was not a registered member of the Ku Klux Democratic Klan.
"Your honor, it's come to the attention of the Prosecutors that if the Defendant were allowed to use this defense they might win, we'd like them to be unable to do so." Sounds good to me.
"I see the Prosecution's point and agree. I am therefore willing to find the Defendant guilty right now, in order to spare the State time and expense and to preclude the need to empanel a jury."
My eldest son, when he was 18, moved in with a girl that was 4 yrs older. He went to visit her during her lunchtime at her work unexpectantly. Her secret boyfriend showed up while our son & her were talking. He left when she said she couldn’t leave for lunch. The other guy was told that our son was just some guy bothering her. He called the police & pressed stalking charges that she agreed to. Pasadena CA police raided my house that he didn’t live. The trial would not let our lawyer introduce that they lived together because it was not initially introduced, even with proof of utility bills. She made the rent. He went to prison for 2 yrs & released with 10 yrs probation asa felon. Her friend, that was my high school student, told me she had done the same thing to another guy.
If for no other reason but for this it will behoove us to unite, fight back and vote for Trump so he can make good on h8s promise to clean the swamp. We need more fair federal judges and Condervative Justices who uphold tje Constiturion.
@@soniag4516come on guy. He didn’t clean the swamp the last time he was in. He did literally none of the things he promised. He is the same as Biden and the rest of the politicians
@@soniag4516 Trump has had four years in office. During two of those years, his party held majorities in both the House and Senate. If Trump didn't clean the swamp with the presidency and no one to hold him up in congress and two years to work, why do you still believe he wanted to?
@@diablomineroI think these people genuinely realize these problems will likely get worse under such authority, but are counting on it to only affect people of demographics they wish to see persecuted. There is a major "he's not hurting the right people" subtext in most of their arguments. Notice how they never look up the political affiliation of the judges either and just assume, usually incorrectly.
@@JamesThomas-kx5sj I don't think you understand the law because nothing in that is illegal. Judges can absolutely tell you that you can't use certain lines of reasoning or make certain claims. That is not illegal at all. I'm sorry you don't understand the law but that's the law.
@@archmage7813Those provisions are meant for suppressing irrelevant or false evidence. Not for suppressing legitimate evidence and arguments. This is a miss-use of court procedure and it seems the appeals court agrees that it was a miss-use.
Going from 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'guilty until proven innocent' and now to 'guilty, not allowed to proof innocence'. What a great world to live in.
Yeah but this guy had no business being there, and he killed the man who owned the home. WHY did he even carry a gun to feed cats? Sounds like a total bs story.
@@macturner2196 Dude, he said he was invited into the building to feed cats. That’s a reasonable reason to be somewhere, he also said the gun was in the closet already. Don’t just hear, listen.
@@dreamcanvas5321 I stopped caring about the arrested guy, when I heard he was cheating. I don't care if he was asked to feed the cat, or not. Give the scumbag life until 90. So, if he lives that long, he can't destroy more families.
@@macturner2196 he didn't carry a gun there. The owner left his gun on top of the gun safe. He picked it up to defend himself from the owner's knife. ...according to the defendant.
Judges seriously need to be held accountable for blatant misconduct in court. Allowing a prosecutor to basically remove the ability for the defendant to make the stance they defended themselves is downright criminal.
We need to end immunity for judges and prosecutors. If they mess up so bad someone ends up in prison, then they need to face criminal charges for something like false imprisonment or kidnapping.
So you want to punish the corrupt or incompetent officials with the system they are corrupting? What could possibly go wrong.. The problem should be fixed by more accurately translating voter desire with outcome. The check on the courts should be people, not the courts. This is in large part due to a strategy by a few politicians, and one man-turtle, to pick and fund campaigns for politically biased judges.
@@cat637d- Qualified Immunity is right and necessary *_when correctly applied._* That is to say, when the official(s) "should reasonably have understood" what is and isn't among the *protected rights of the citizen.* This is a very broad statement, a general principle, WIDELY applicable at all levels of civil and criminal matters, whether or not the Courts are involved.
I wonder if they were trying to nullify the self defense claim because the defendant was there because of an immoral purpose. I see it to some extent, he was participating in adultery "a crime" claiming self defense. They just went about it all wrong.
sounds like we have a judge who should no longer be allowed to practice law in general. That judge entirely undermined the whole point of trails in general. the very definition of Kangaroo court. That the judge also ignored the order of the appellant court the first time shows that it was intentional. The judge fully intended to deny a citizen their most basic of rights.
The judges and prosecutors involved in approving these things should be considered a violation of judicial canons etc. Judges just get to violate the rights of the defense without penalty.
Beyond the absurdity of not allowing a self-defence argument for the charge, the mere fact that the trial court didn't allow for a defendant to argue an alternative interpretation of facts submitted into evidence is probably the grossest miscarriage of justice I've heard about. Literally a kangaroo court.
@@Nick-b7b9s Right? To me it sounds like the husband got ahold of her phone, texted him, deleted it, and fully intended to kill him. WHY WASN'T THIS ALLOWED TO BE ARGUED
It is not absurd at all. He literally admitted he broke into a home and then assaulted that person with a deadly weapon (knife or gun). He claims he only stabbed/shot the person living there in self defense. that is preposterous. How would you feel if someone broke into your home, stabbed you, and then claim he was only stabbing you to defend himself?
That judge needs to be removed from being a judge and have their law license removed for life and banned nationwide. Their is no way a barely competent judge makes such a bad decision.
Yes, I'm not really sure how else you serve justice if you don't send it for a new trial with a new judge. The only other reasonable alternative would be to set aside the conviction completely, but I do think that a mistrial is probably the correct remedy.
Why more horrifying? You may go to jail for a crime, when innocent but in family court you can go to jail, or have everything taken away, for many years. You may be subject to a never ending vindictiveness.
And, in a family law case, the real victims are the children! At least in criminal law you have a court of appeals. And in family law, there isn't any Court of appeals! The judges in my case in particular, side stepped the standard practice, violated my rights and don't give a fuck the impact on my kids! And then the judges have absolute immunity!? My kid can't even sue the judge in civil court down the road!
The courts did that to me when I filed for divorce against my wife. My divorce and consequential child support case was in court over 45 times in the course of 10 years. That included many continuances, which I had to take time off from work for. I started working 3rd shift just so that I could go to court at 9am in the morning. But to make it short, I saw paperwork at some point that had my ex-wife's name as the plaintiff and me as the defendant. I brought original court documents to court after I saw that, and I asked the Judge to have CPS undo what they had illegally done, altering and modifying legal documents. The Judge took one look at my original documentation and scorned the CPS to have that changed immediately.
And that's all?! Gah, I hate the CPS. I was taken by them at the age of 2, and I still remember clearly what it cost me. They're corrupt, and disgusting.
Honestly, that fact that they tried so hard to supress his ability to claim self-defence makes me think it's true more than anything. Also makes me wonder if the husband knows the prosecutor or the judge personally.
@@mat100ca Which would be just as bad as if they had made that decision because they knew the husband. The moral opinions of the judge and prosecutor should have as much bearing on a jury trail as the price of tea in India. If the judge suppressed that defense because of his personal opinions then that judge directly rigged that trial by eliminating a defense that could have swayed a jury, violating his Sixth Amendment rights. Because how can you have an impartial jury if the jury is only allowed to hear evidence that supports the prosecution and none that supports the defense? The Court of Appeals agreed that the judge was completely in the wrong for suppressing that defense so either the judge made a stupid mistake or he's essentially guilty of Jury Tampering and he's a criminal, the later being the case if he lets personal feelings dictate what evidence he allows into the trial instead of the clearly defined rules of the law.
I actually think this is what it comes down to. The Husband didn't want his wife testifying as that would lead to a public exposure of the infidelity. And the only way to prevent the wife from testifying was to get the the self defense, defense removed. Which then allows for the burglarly charge. To be fair, I think the prosecutor was probably as shocked as the defense his request was granted. But he/she took the win.
Similar thing happened to me, Judge flat out refused to see any of my proof for a case and flat out refused to talk with my attorney. Him and the DA were buddy buddy so I got screwed and convicted of crime that never happened. Same judge a few years prior refused to appoint an attorney to a young man who was in jail and the guy ended up taking his own life because of it. Judge was reelected year after year. Corruption is a terrible thing.
That's the downside of living in a small town. Police and courts get away with all sorts of abuses. Make a bunch of money and put them in federal court. It's the only thing you can do about it when they actually are corrupt. Otherwise they can just railroad you. You should also stay somewhere other than your address while it happens. Police don't fight fair.
I am assuming it was small enough thing that it wasn't worth putting the time and effort to go through appeals court. That's how those small towns nickel-and-dime you
@@MB-xe8bbso you would rather have apointed judges? So bad people can getvtheir bad friends apointed as judge? You want to take away power from voters?
It's crazy how prosecutors have a desire to win even at the cost of justice...a great book was written on this subject on why prosecutors and judges fight against releasing people proven innocent from jail called "Blind Injustice". It's written by a former prosecutor who later worked as an attorney for his State's Innocence Project so he has a unique perspective.
It's unfair that the prosecution has essentially unlimited funds, and the defense is limited to what the defendant can afford or a very overked public attorney who has no resources. For that reason, and what you said, prosecutors should come from the same pool as public defenders.
It's completely expected. Prosecutors are graded based on how many convictions and guilty pleas that they get. No one ever gives them credit for "finding the truth." So it incentivizes them to steamroll defendants at all costs. So the times that prosecutors don't go hard on people, it's not because they believe that someone is innocent, but only because they don't think they can win the case and that would hurt their record.
I was charged with a crime I didn’t commit. Even though I had witnesses and overwhelming evidence to support my innocence, the prosecution REFUSED to drop charges, and I was forced to take the case to trial. So dumb. I was found innocent of course, but I had to spend tons of money and time fighting it.
I had a similar issue where I was in court and my solicitor (uk) did not turn up - this was 30 years ago long before mobile phones - I was forced to stand for myself and when I asked for a postponement because of this, the prosectution started going on and on about "this trial is already 2 years overdue, wasted enough time etc etc" - When I replied that the reason for the trial being 2 years overdue was because the PROSECUTION had POSTPONED the court date THREE TIMES while getting it's case together, and I was only asking for one, because my solicitor had not turned up, the prosecution objected again, and THE JUDGE DENIED MY PETITION, so I was forced to represent myself. Needless to say I lost and was fined £1500 for a minor traffic violation. It wasnt until years later I found out this was clear grounds for a mistrial and the judge should have given me that postponement. I've never trusted the UK's legal system since. I suggest you don't either. Oh and the nail in the coffin - the person whom had driven me to court told me after the proceedings that he had heard the police officer waiting to give evidence against me say "we're going to nail him to the wall and make an example of him". Still REALLY angers me to think about it.
I just reread what you posted it took me a minute because solicitor in America means the prosecuting attorney nothing else I mean you may see solicitor at law but in court the solicitor is the prosecutor more often than not you're going to see attorney at law I mean he's going to get those cops to solicit those criminals in the court so he can have a job long time friend of mine said you want to get screwed go to the courthouse you want Justice go to the whorehouse
You should have taken all the names and court transcripts and gone to the press and nail the officer, the prosecutor and the corrupt judge to wall and make examples of them.
If the judge and prosecutor have history , their cases shouldn't be allowed n that judges court, especially if that prosecutors sustain favorable outcomes from that particular judge.
I had a friend of mine accused of rape . On the original police report, woman said the man who raped her was clean shaving , middle aged with slightly gray hair. The cops in the area , two separate counties had it in for my friend they picked up my friend. He was 21 , had a mustache and black hair. They pressured him into being in a line up , he asked for a lawyer 3 times. Figuring he had nothing to hide he agreed to be in a line up. The woman picked him out of the line up. He was convicted and spent 7 years in prison maintaining his Innocence . To get out he had to go through classes where he had to admit to what he had done for the consoling. The assistant DA had to excuse himself from the case because he eventually married the woman . The detective on the case was demoted for evidence tampering in another case. While in prison my buddy tried several times to appeal based on the original police report . Court would not allow it .
Always, always, always get an attorney and remain silent. It's not the job of police to set you free, once you've been arrested. At that point, it's their job to gather evidence to prosecute you. It's up to the court and a trial to set you free.
Not justifying what happened but, first of all, that woman was not raped, if she had they could have done a rape kit test and figured out you friend couldn't have been the rapist due to DNA recovered, your friend was set up by that woman. Secondly your buddy completely fucked himself by falsely admitting he did it just to get out of classes, he pretty much has no case anymore. Also, just agreeing to line up was a mistake as well, it was a waste of his time and he got framed for it.
DOES NOT MATTER listen clearly, witness testimony is more solid in maintaining a conviction than anything on earth actual evidence can be reviewed by appeals courts, but not witness testimony the appeals can only look at the information in the best light for the prosecutor, that means the jury is an INFALLIBLE lie detector, called the triers of the facts, who can administer a lie detector from afar, yet a lie detector with any equipment known to man is banned
@@jaredgarbo3679 He was 21 , an orphan and was homeless. He had a public defender . He appealed on the original police report but they would not grant it. It wasn't a lack of an attorney it was lack of money to hire an attorney who would actually fight for him.
Again, nothing evil about that request. That's a good request. That's a brilliant request. If your opponent can't argue then you win. Nothing evil about it. It's the judge's job to laugh it off and say no chance. Lawyers do lots of crazy things on both sides. That's why there's a judge
@@archmage7813Prosecutors are supposed to strike hard blows, not foul ones. They are held to a higher ethical standard than other attorneys because of their job. Where other attorneys are ethically bound to act in their clients' interests, prosecutors are bound to be honorable and try to get the truth before a jury.
@@rhoonah5849 treason... Judges violating their oath and the rights of the citizens on purpose typically at the behest of financial gain to undermine and destroy the citizenry is 100% treason
So the court won't let them plead self defence then when convicted, gives the guy hugely excessive sentences? I'm guessing the Judge got cheated on before and is slightly sore about it.
I guess we should allow self defense as a defense for all homicides, even when the law doesn't merit it, right? Let's allow muggers to raise self defense as a defense the next time some schmuck gets shot for fighting back. That'll teach them.
@@barongerhardt I live in Rhode Island and we don't vote for our judges they're put there by the bar association. So basically lawyers elect the judges and if they're bad the bar association can and do just remove them.
@@barongerhardt it's the bar association. So attorneys elect other attorneys (or themselves, I suppose) to the positions. From the RI Bar Association web site: The Rhode Island Bar Association is a unified bar to which all attorneys licensed to practice in the state, belong. As of January 2019 we have 5,237 active members and 1131 inactive and out-of-state members bringing our total to 6,368. There are currently 154 Associate and/or In House Counsel Memberships. The total of all membership categories is 6,522. An elected House of Delegates meets quarterly and an Executive Committee, which meets monthly to govern the Association. The Association holds an Annual Meeting in June. The "Bar year" runs from July 1 through June 30. In fulfilling its stated purposes, the Bar's programs and activities are designed to serve the needs and interests of the membership, the public and the administration of justice. So I'm not sure if that means they could only remove the judge during their monthly meeting or if they would hold a.... Tribunal? To revoke a bar license. But you could lose your law license even as a judge and that would disqualify you from being a judge. In other words here being a judge means you have to be a lawyer first. Not just any lawyer, a lawyer that has the respect of his or her fellow lawyers. This judge would be in hot water if they did that here. I don't even know if they could go back to being a regular lawyer after something like that. If they did it multiple times they'd have to go somewhere else. Probably your state where they could win an election saying things like they'd be tough on crime LOL 🤣. I'm sorry it's really not funny..... It it's probably more true than we would like. But you guys could change the law in your state.... I think it might be a good idea to consider it anyway. At least make a requirement that you have to be a lawyer to run to be a judge. I'm baffled at how you could be a judge and not a lawyer (somewhere) 1st. That sounds like kangaroo court or like that 1st Star Trek episode with Q.... Scary 😳 I can understand electing judges, that seems fine at least in principle. But it seems crazy that you could elect I don't know, a plumber to be a judge. What's the idea behind that? To me that just sounds like chaos. I don't even think Klingons would do that! Like could I just have trial by combat instead? How many people were you live have been convicted of witchcraft? I mean it just seems like anything would fly.... Hopefully you don't elect your circuit Court judges so at least a legal professional will hear your appeal.
The defense ought to have the right to make ANY claim and let the court and jury decide it's efficacy. I fail to understand how or why a defendant would be restricted from making any argument. If he says he is innocent because his lawn flamingoes did it, he should be able to argue that.
100% you can blame the prosecution. If a cashier at a store tries to sneak in a bunch of extra charges and you catch them you don't just go "Haha can't blame you for trying!" Screw that cashier. A prosecutor has a job to do but that job isn't find guilt at any cost, even if you have to take their rights away at trial.
This is another one of those cases where the judge/count and the prosecution conspired to get a conviction. It is likely that both judge and prosecutor continue in their jobs no worse for it. You would think that conspiring to deprive a person of their rights and liberty would be punishable.
It is, it is called violating a persons civil rights under color of law. It carries up to the death penalty. But it isn't enforced because the entire system is corrupt.
Nah, this man is guilty as hell and his story makes zero sense. He was invited in by the wife to feed the cats that neither she nor the husband could do. Then he couldn't get a door open, as you know those are rather difficult to use. So he goes into the wife's special room that is her escape plan. Can't get a window open. Hides in a closet with a gun. The husband, just happens to be wondering the house with a hunting knife for reasons. So when he finds the man, he grabs a loaded gun that isn't his, and shoots the husband in the struggle. All while breaking and entering. Honestly I can see why the judge refused to allow such absurdity in the courts.
@@Kevin7557 Agreed. I can't comprehend the level of simping going on in this page for an obviously deceptive bastard. It's making me reevaluate my opinion of the entire channel, if he's championing causes like this.
My old professor used to always deny offer of proof during mock trial. It was his thing if it was criminal court. It drove me nuts till I realized why he did it. He wanted us to write an appeal and I wrote many in school. After hearing this I’m glad he did that. I realize the lesson he was trying to teach.
Yet it is also the reason the court system is clogged up. Speedy Trial has taken a backseat to a fictional “version” of due process. Yes, both are very important. However, I’m sure you know these tactics could easily be verbally presented to a judge at initial hearing and sustained/overruled within a few minutes, not weeks/months of frivolous paperwork/filings.
@@wallywrench9844 well i don't really agree with the plumber argument. first of all, you're not usually going to find a service worker just hiding next to your guns.
There is a conflict of right in this case which is why it is a criminal case. This is a complicated case because of the involvement of adultery and that both burglary and assault were involved.
@@RhizometricReality This is not an example of that as the appeals court is also a state actor. The prosecutor and lower judge are incompetent or malicious and should possibly be removed from their respective office. That would depend on their history as it is human to err.
@@kerwinbrown4180 no, this was a boyfriend and a husband assault case. The fact that they want to put this man away for 60 years is ridiculous given they won't even let him defend himself.
I have to be honest with you, as a juror if I saw someone neglect to make the obvious defense and get shown out of the room for a few minutes the moment his attorney gets even close to it, that man would be walking free if I have to hang the jury for a week.
Right the judge is suppose to make sure the law process( according to the written law n the books) is followed not to put his personal opinions n to play, that's why judges need to be evaluated by a party not affiliated by within their jurisdiction, but outside.
In places where judges are elected, the fact that "I will be tough on crime" is apparently something people vote for rather than against is a significant part of it.
My local court is a clown show. The judge frequently denies people the right to a court-appointed attorney, and then they will not allow defendants to bring in evidence that exonerates them. They do not allow recording devices of any kind in and they do not appear to have a stenographer. The judge and lawyers get confused about what case they are on sometimes, and the prosecutors will come to court without all of their files. The judge will actually start to argue the prosecution's case for him & doesn't pay attention to the actual laws. Judges get paid extra for convictions and the local judge has a 100% conviction rate. The court appointed attorneys only try to do plea deals (if they actually show up-- there have been times where the attorneys didn't even show up for trial). WTF? Why even have a trial if the defendant isn't allowed to offer any evidence or explanation in his own defense? Kind of makes it all pointless if he can't defend himself. I can and do blame the prosecution for pulling that bs, but the judge should not be allowed to serve as a judge anymore for allowing that injustice.
What if the prison was private and the judge has a few buddies made a back room deal sending prisoners to private prisons knowing more u send the more money to be made.
THat is SOOOO UNCONSTITUTIONAL that it boils the blood. There is no federal judge in the world who would allow such a system to operate, where the JUDGE IS PAID FOR CONVICTING people before him. You could file a one-page pro se complaint in any federal court in your state and that would be declared unconstitutional almost IMMEDIATELY. DO IT. You can google all the information you need; you don't have to be a lawyer. It doesn't have to be PRETTY. IT doesn't even have to be TYPED or PRINTED. Hand print your complaint and file it in federal court. Or shut up about it.
Its a shame the appeals court even needs to be there to deal with this. Its a waste of court time. The law that allows the prosecution to ask to prevent a defendant from making a defense due to it affecting the likelyhood of a conviction.
This is what happened to me in my 2nd degree battery case. The judge blocked the self defense argument allowing us to "only say that I hit him", and that was the only defense we were allowed. So we had to go for insanity which failed. So I was found guilty, but in the sentencing phase I got to tell the story as it actually happen, the jury sentenced me to 0 years, 0 dollars, 0 restitution once they realized the court had played games with them. The judge overturned that and gave me 3 years probation. 2.5 years later they "invent" a charge against me and revoke my probation and I'm found not guilty of the charge they brought originally against me. But I still have to do 7 months on a 3 year sentence for it despite doing nothing a jury felt was illegal.
so you were basically told "you're not allowed to defend yourself while the prosecution can railroad you and cover you in as much sludge as they want".
My first battery charge had zero evidence against me and I was still found guilty, court systems are only out to make money one way or another and there is nothing that can be done besides bringing back tar and feathers.
Did you appeal the sentence? Sounds like the judge was biased and didn't like having his ruling overturned by the jury. Judges and cops egos are out of control!
Prosecutors routinely move to block testimony and/or evidence that would otherwise hurt their case. There are many instances where a jury didn't hear about some important context in a case, found out AFTER they delivered a verdict, and then went before the media to say they'd would have delivered the OPPOSITE verdict had they known. Context is important. It sheds light upon ones reasoning and actions.
the problem with that strategy is that it gives convicts grounds to appeal. For a "good prosecutor" closing the case would be relevant - let the defendant argue what ever. Let it be on the record - at least then it is not a ground to appeal the case.
Certain "context" is irrelevant to the crime, that's why as a default prior acts are typically excluded, that's why defendants are not permitted to argue jury nullification, some things are just not relevant to the case. There is a problem with over zealous prosecution, but we can't remedy that by allowing everything in. What we need is more neutral judges. In this case they seemed to overly favor the prosecution.
@@sarowie Acquitted on appeal gets hand-waved away as getting off on a technicality in the eyes of the sorts of people who vote for tough-on-crime politicians. Most prosecutors have dreams of elected office sooner or later.
This reminds me of the time our local community essentially had to sell chunks of our land to widen the main road. The Farmer with the most to lose rallied everybody together and the city agreed to have a hearing about it. It started out with the engineering department of the city explaining what their plans are, and the council got to ask many questions. Next was the main farmer who organized everything, and after explaining his case, the city told him they were not allowed to ask questions. They were simply there to hear his complaint even though they were allowed to ask questions to the engineering department one minute earlier.
The idea that you could be barred from using any defense is insane and goes against the very core concept of justice. I've heard of this happening several times in the last few years and I can't for the life of me figure out how it could possibly be legal. We are guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution. Preventing people from presenting their defense is definitionally unfair. I can't express enough how much this pisses me off.
Right? If the defendant wants to argue something, they need to be allowed to. It's up to the prosecutor to disprove the defense and convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, despite what they say....
@@HighLordBaron Or at least the defendant should have the right to argue with the judge if he is allowed to argue with the judge if he as the defendant as the right to argue in front of the jury. But why so many hoopes? Rather cut into the specifics of the defense. But why that? The "victim" can also use the arguments of the defendant to paint a picture of the situation. The argument "I came home, found an unknown men, he shoot me and now he is mocking me - the victim - by claiming selfe defense in my house where he was without my permission?" could be strong picture to the jury. Yes, defendant had permission from the girl friend, but the statement of fact that he had no permission from the victim will not be disputed - it only sound "bad" when put into context.
@@sarowie Honestly, in my eyes this is a case where no one is on the wrong really. The victim came home and found a strange man in his home. The defendant was invited into the home and then attacked by the homeowner. Both sides have a valid reason for self defense, at least in my eyes....
"Your Honor, we have video evidence that clearly shows that the perp in this case was not the defendant and in fact was the backyard neighbor of the state's attorney." The judge: "That prejudicial and I won't allow it." Actual case in Kentucky and stood for nearly a decade.
Something similar happened to me when I was not allowed to use the defense that CPS had recently given us custody of 2 grand children that I was accused of trying to abscond with no keys in the ignition while my wife and I were waiting to get some clothes and supplies for the children …Jan 2001 no cameras and I was convicted of obstruction for asking questions and resisting was added because I wouldn’t take the plea deal. My wife sounded evasive on the witness stand when asked why we had the kids in our car because she couldn’t tell them that we had just been given custody.
My criminal law professor required us to memorize a bunch of common law crimes. Almost 30 years later, I still remember them. The common law definition of burglary was the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. So at common law burglaries had to happen at night at someone's home. You couldn't be convicted of burglary for breaking into an office during the day. There was a very funny case in our casebook about burglary. As I recall, in England in the 1970s, there was a young man out and about that decided he wanted to find a woman for sex. He preferred to find one who was willing, but would force a girl if he couldn't find a willing one. To be clear that isn't the funny part. As he was walking past a home, he noticed a pretty girl in an upstairs window. He stripped off all his clothes, except his socks "in case he had to make a quick getaway" and climbed the terrace. As he reached the girl's window, the girl realized 3 things. First, there was a man outside her window, second, that man was naked, and third that man had an erection. It was dark and she thought he was her boyfriend so she invited him in and had sex with him. Afterwards she realized it wasn't her boyfriend so she screamed and the guy was arrested. Was he guilty of rape? No, because the sex had been consensual even if that was because she thought he was someone else. But did he commit burglary? That question hinged on whether he broke and entered the plane of the window before he was invited in because burglary requires that you break and enter with the INTENT to commit a felony. It doesn't matter if you actually go on to commit a felony, just that you intended to. As I recall the court decided that his erection had broken the plane of the window and the guy had therefore been guilty of burglary. Less amusing was a case from NYC in the 1990s. There was a Columbia University grad student named Oliver Jovanovic, that was into BDSM. He met a girl on the Internet, they exchanged emails, and met in person. He tied her up, engaged in BDSM play and had sex with her over a weekend. Afterwards she claimed it hadn't been a consensual. At trial, the judge excluded all of the e-mails between Jovanovic and the woman citing the NY rape shield law. While I think defendants shouldn't normally be able to use a victim's sexual history as a defense, this was different. To say an email in which the girl asked Jovanovic to do the very things he was accused of doing to her should be excluded is ridiculous. His whole defense was it was consensual! That doesn't mean he might not be guilty. Even if she asked him to do it prior to their meeting, she still had a right to change her mind. If she told him to stop, he had to stop. But he absolutely should have been able to enter her emails into evidence. An appeals court did reverse his conviction and order a new trial. But he spent 20 months in prison where he was assaulted by an inmate first. The DA wanted to retry him, but the alleged victim refused to testify, arguably because she knew she would be cross examined with the contents of the emails. Did I mention the girl's grandmother told the media her granddaughter was a notorious liar? The case made me mad. I can only imagine how Jovanovic felt.
Well... I think the rape case in England you mentioned a jury could not possibly have found that credible... How could you let a person in, have sex with them, and somehow NOT know its not your b.f.? I mean. They didnt speak... I dont care how dark it is, if you can see he has an erection, surely shed have seen his face at some point during the act... It just strains credibility.... As for the Jovanovic case... I was once dating a woman who asked me to act out a "rape fantasy" she had where she would leave her door unlocked and id "sneak in" in the middle of the night...needless to say, good judgement set off all sorts of alarm bells in my head and that relationship was quickly ended... Sometimes a guy has to be sure hes thinking with the right head
How are they wrong? The law in Texas clearly doesn't recognize the perps right to self defense since he attacked the lawful homeowner in his own home. Should some random thug be able to argue self defense if they just shoot someone on the street for their wallet? You are not allowed to raise a defense that has no legal merit. Many would be robbers have attempted to raise this asinine defense after killing victims who fought back only to have the courts immediately squash such nonsense. Perhaps the next mass shooters should then also be able to raise the claim of self defense as well. That would be interesting.
@@GunnyO326 Your argument makes sense. This was not a mass shooter, yes he was in someone's home and the homeowner was surprised to find him. The whole point of this story is he was not allowed to defend himself in court. He was there with the other home owners permission. He had a key and the pass code to the house's security system. He has evidence to show he was told to be there. Yet he was charged with burglary. How did you miss this whole point?
Something (kind of) similar happened to me (UK) I got into a disagreement with a guy outside a bar where he was joined by two friends who surrounded me and my girlfriend. I decided to walk away, but the first guy followed me and squared up to me. After a few words were exchanged, he went to throw a punch at me, but I managed to strike him first which knocked him to the ground. He started to get back up, so being conscious that his two friends were now behind me, I hit him again (before he'd got back to his feet) and I turned to face the other two. His friends didn't get involved, and police arrived very quickly (unbeknownst to me, they were only about 50 yards away when this all happened). Anyway, it went to court as I was charged with aggravated assault. The prosecution tried to have my defence (of self defence) removed on the basis that I'd hit him while he was still technically on the ground (albeit getting to his feet). Due to this, my appointed duty solicitor removed themselves, so I also had to represent myself (I didn't want to wait again for another court date, which was an option due to this, as my employer at the time had to put me on leave while the case was in progress). All of what happened was caught on CCTV. The prosecution only wanted to admit a certain portion of the CCTV (from when the first guy squared up to me AFTER the first interaction with him and his friends, up until I'd hit him while he was still technically on the ground). Luckily, the judge (magistrate) wasn't convinced by the prosecution, and allowed me to claim self defence; ergo, allowing the whole CCTV footage. My argument of self defence was "righteous" (magistrate's words) as the guy clearly lunged at me first (it was deemed fair for me to use a "preemptive strike') however, the issue was me hitting him while he was still technically on the ground. The CCTV helped me here too as it showed my reasoning (another two possible attackers) and also showed the first guy (once it was over and I was held by police) was going crazy, threatening me and trying to get at me. This, I believe proved my point that he would have still been a threat to me had I not struck him for a second time (eliminate the threat, so to speak). The prosecution tried pushing (correctly, I guess) that I could not have known this at the time, but the magistrate felt that it did show some justification. The fact that I was with my girlfriend while this happened also weighed in my favour (apparently it shows a duty for me to be protective, and also shines a bad light on my attackers). Still, it didn't end as I wanted though, although it did go much better than it could have. I was found guilty of common assault (lesser than aggravated) based solely on the guy still technically (and in the eyes of the law - having at least one knee down) being on the ground when I struck him the second time. The first strike was not even considered by the court. The magistrate gave me the lightest possible sentence though. A three month conditional discharge, no costs/fines, and no "victim" surcharge (so he couldn't claim compensation). Apologies, I didn't realise that my story was so long, lol. Thanks for reading if you got to the end, and stay safe. *EDIT:* In case anyone was wondering, I did keep my job even though I'd technically received a "conviction". Upon request, the court/magistrate was kind enough to write a letter explaining the extenuating circumstances of my guilty verdict. So all's well that ends well, I guess.
Sorry to hear you went through such bullshit, I'm glad it worked out not too terribly; but still. This is one reason why the few times in my life I've been facing a potentially violent encounter I try as hard as possible to evade, but I know that's not always possible. I've been fortunate that _most_ of the time it's possible to deescalate directly, or my commitment to deescalation got me support from bystanders, but it's still scary when it happens. P.S. F**k those prosecutors who tried to railroad you like that.
I AM GLAD THINGS 'WORKED OUT FOR YOU', SORT OF..THE POLICE..ALWAYS ELIMINATE THE THREAT...ONCE STARTED, YOU SHOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED LEGAL RIGHT ...TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT AND ..MAKE YOURSELF SAFE...THIS CRAP THAT YOU WERE USING EXCESS FORCE SINCE THE GUY WAS ..ON THE GROUND IS CRAP...I LIKE HOW YOU PUT IT..PREEMPTIVE STRIKE..OF COURSE..SELF DEFENSE..MAN SORRY YOU WENT THROUGH THIS TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE..THANKS FOR THE STORY...
It sounds like the original trial judge has experience with catching his/her spouse cheating, and saw this as an opportunity at getting some vicarious "justice" for themselves.
Recently I walked a guy charged with burglary. He got home and found his wife with another man. There was pushing and shoving by both men. Then the husband left. Cops arrived, took a report and issued warrant for the husband for burglary. I just went through the whole process and about a week before trial I gave the prosecution a copy of the lease that stated my client was the rentor and had every right to be on the property. Dismissed two days before trial.
Another serious problem, is when your attorney refuses to use a defense that is perfectly valid, because he’s afraid of the judge or the law-enforcement community. I know of such cases. Another thing to consider, is the incredible amount of money, time and aggravation that this defendant went through, because a judge would not allow an OBVIOUS and reasonable defense.
That just happened to me. I was getting foreclosed on a piece of land that didn't even have a mortgage. They are more concerned about their procedure and the steps to responding to a statement of claim instead of the simple " hey look, this isn't even the right mortgage loan numbers or correct parcel of land". It's like the twilight zone.
Escape window happens to be stuck closed and is in the room where the guns are kept and a pistol just happens to be sitting on the top of the safe. I'd have more questions for the wife.
@@scottgilbert9074 i was wondering about that too. Im curious that if part of the reason why he wasnt allowed to use that specific defense, may have something to do with keeping the wife from testifying, and with that also keeping the husband from having to reveal some detail.
"Your Honor, it's come to our attention that justice may prevail if the defendant is allowed to proceed with his defense arguments. We must not let that happen......"
When it is a situation that precludes a self-defense argument. For example, white supremacist Frazier Glenn Miller had his attempts to argue self-defense shot down after he killed a few people shooting up either a synagogue or Jewish cultural center.
Self-defense has some legal requirements, and if you can't explain how you could possibly meet those requirements, it could just confuse the jury. That's why you're supposed to get the chance to show there is at least something that could possibly back your claim.
This does not surprise me at all. The fact is as long as we remain silent nothing will change. My husband was catastrophically injured with more injuries than I can mention including requiring ventilator assistance to breathe! Even in the presence of evidence the Appeal court reversed the prior decision and granted immunity. I needed that information about the IJ. Thank you for discussing this.
@@rmhartman You really should read the definition of burglary . "entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft". If he didn't enter the building illegally (he didn't) there is no burglary.
@@rmhartman He was attacked with a lethal weapon, that gives him the right to defend himself including picking up objects owned by the attacker. He does not have the right to take the gun with him home, but he can use it to defend himself.
@@rmhartman Texas Penal Code Sec. 30.02 Burglary (a)A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person: (1)enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or (2)remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or (3)enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault. It can't ever be considered burglarly if he had a right to be there by permission. At most they can get is assault assuming self defense is defeated.
- Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? - No - What do you mean "No"? - You prohibited me not to under motion in limine
yeah, that is why you do not let the defendant speak at all. And going trough the show of arguing in front of the jury, the jury being send out, then the jury returning and being told to forget.... does not look good for a defendant.
I suppose the only tactic is to set up for the appeal by entering to the record every time the defense withheld evidence based on the direction of the judge. Then the transcript looks ridiculous on review/appeal. It would also be ridiculous to have the jury in and out constantly to enter it. Having said that this particular guy clearly made a series of unwise decisions that lead to his crime. At any point he could have changed his path.. or avoided adultury in the first place 🤣
Steve, I have tried about 20 cases or so from DUI to murder. I can't understand for the life of me how the trial judge, whom I would imagine has tried many more cases than I, thought this was acceptable? Very sad to see this happening.
Maybe they didn't believe it was acceptable, but didn't care? The reason why we have police and courts is because people in general do not follow laws without consequences, right? So it stands to reason that if the people involved are immune to prosecution themselves the only thing that would stop them from doing such a thing would be their own good nature. Some people have it and can be trusted to do what is right even without the threat of consequences, but others don't and that's what erodes at liberties.
Wasn't this in Texas? I didn't look it up but I do know that they elect their judges. A former colleague of mine ran for "office" with no legal experience at all.
@@ragtop63 I actually don't think that is really a bad thing in politics. Building an entrenched political class defeats the point of tossing out a monarchy/aristocracy. One failure of our political system in the US is that we have failed to institute term limits, have allowed special privileges for legislative and executive electees and appointees, and have failed to clamp down on multigenerational corruption in politics.
IF he has texts, that's pretty damning against the prosecution. Not allowing those texts into evidence is a travesty of justice Regardless, it's shady af and speaks to possibly a larger conspiracy that they just outright denied this line of defense
This is crazy, I would like to see the CHEATING Wife's text messages and see if she set these 2 guys up to get into a fight. This is CLEARLY self defense but if the wife had sent both her husband and the man she was having an affair with into the home to cause the fight, isn't she the one committing the crime here?
There is a need to avoid unduly prejudicial information from leaning a jury, but largely almost anything related to the case should be allowed IMO. I don’t think there should be *no* limits, but the example in this video isn’t even close to reasonable.
That's literally just what a judge's job is. It's a necessary part of the legal system. Without it either side could just make stuff up and say it without any repercussions.
@@derrick9653 it's not hard to imply things without explicitly lying. Implications are enough to bias a jury. That's why there are rules as to what you can argue and how you can make arguments.
@@haph2087 perhaps things can get out of control, but to deny a person defending themselves the right to tell their own story isn't a trial...it's a farcical faux show of justice. We act like juries are stupid and that they can't sort out all of the information and assign its relevance or that direct lies cannot be punished...but that simply isn't the case.
I've seen this kind of thing more than once and I honestly don't think courts should have ANY ability to limit what someone can say in their own defense at all. People should be free to make whatever kind of defense they want and the jury should be there to consider it's validity. In modern jury systems the jury is largely there as a useless facade to be manipulated and make everyone think that trials are fair. Their decision-making abilities have been eroded to the point where the primary points of having a jury of your peers in the first place has been lost.
I'm personally against the idea of a trial by jury of peers. A trial by jury is important to drown out any individual person's bias (although it does little for cultural and systemic biases), but it's the "of peers" part that gets me. The average American is slow, poorly educated, and lacks empathy. And the jury selection process scrubs out anyone with opinions and knowledge that might impact the case; I get that its purpose is to keep premature verdicts out of the courtroom, but all it really does is select for uninformed potatoes who can't critically process what is given to them. The jury bench is thus stuffed full of the dumbest members of the community. Seriously, if you're on trial for some kind of felony you know you didn't commit, do you want your fate decided by people who read at a 4th or 5th grade level, whose understanding of civics comes from a steady diet of Tucker Carlson and Miller Lite? Fuck no. Triply so if you're black or gay. Would it really be such an evil thing to have professional jurors? I'd be more comfortable with having a jury filled with people who have a profit motive to be fair and just (and on the flip side, being on a jury that caused a mistrial would be a black stain on their career), who have to study the law along with advanced critical thinking skills that would qualify them for a position as an adjunct professor. The jury selection process would be a matter of looking through each juror's record and kicking out the ones that demonstrate any clear biases that would hinder your case. It'd be much more efficient and fair.
@Luke Fabis I understand what you are saying. I believe the "of your peers" has been misunderstood over time. When it was adopted, most all communities from which a jury would be gathered were small enough that everyone knew of everyone else. They may not have had a personal relationship with them, but, at the very least, they knew of their character through their reputation. I believe it originally meant the people who knew you, knew your character, and therefore, if you were prone to lying versus were honest or prone to fits of rage versus being controlled under all circumstances or any other type of behaviour to better judge if you were guilty or innocent. Now, if you know the defendant, you are disqualified to serve on the jury, the exact opposite of the original intent.
I know someone who went to trial and could prove he was at work an hour drive away from the crime scene at the time the crime happened. His timecard was ruled inadmissable for defense because his worksite had no cameras to prove he was physically present at his job and didn't prove no one clocked him in and out on his behalf. He spent 3 years in state prison. Testimony form coworkers was also ruled inadmissable.
I would guarantee that if he was being prosecuted for something that happened at the worksite then his timecard would definitely be used as evidence by the prosecution.
That's nuts. If that was the prosecutors reasoning, then he needs to prove the defendant was not at work. Not allowing that defense is denying the defendant due process. But what do I know, common sense often seems to be missing in a court of law these days.
Many judges in Texas feel their DUTY is to help the prosecution convict criminal defendants. Since most were prosecutors before being elected judges, they don't see that their role in the system has changed, and that they are there to "protect the community".
That's why the state legislature enacted a law that stopped allowing the governor to give pardon/clemency orders for inmates. They were afraid a liberal governor would stop too many death row executions. So, the law requires a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles to first approve requests for pardons/clemency/etc and those approved are sent to the governor to approve.
@@popo_53 All States have some type of judicial review board where you can submit allegations for Judicial misconduct and they can be subjected to punishment including removal from the bench. Qualified immunity protects them from civil and criminal suits. Smarten up before you run off at the mouth housewife
This happens with the truth in court every day. A person should be able to defend himself with any crazy excuse they want. And leave it to the jurors to decide what’s true.
Sadly, some criminal court judges think of themselves as prosecutors/crime-fighters rather than as neutral arbiters of justice. This was likely one of those judges.
I've said for years that if I ever had to testify, it would go like this: Lawyer: "Please answer yes or no." Me: "I refuse to answer that with yes or no. I've sworn to tell the WHOLE truth, and you want me to give a partial truth. Unless I can reply with context, I'm not answering."
and you'd get held in contempt of court, guaranteed. don't mess with a judge's ego, because they're absolutely massive, almost as big as the beer gut on most of these losers
You can't actually do that. You do that it's contempt of court if the judge feels spicy. So... No. You would not. You answer yes or no and then it's your attorneys job on cross examination to give you the opportunity to give the context
@@Setixir "Do you confirm that, according to your knowledge, the defendant stopped his habit of raping children every Sunday? Please answer yes or no." "But he never..." "CONTEMPT OF COURT!"
I don't doubt this happened in texas considering I've lived here my whole life. I have my own crazy story that happened in court. I used to pay child support until he grew up, but in the middle of it I had changed jobs. During that time I had given her in person payments in cash until the state resumed garnishment from my paycheck from new job. We had a readjustment hearing afterwards and in court the judge asked her if I had given money to her while that happened and she said YES. Then he stopped and told her "hey you do know if you say no, he will own you that money again. Do you want to change your statement?". I couldn't believe it! Lucky she was honest and kept her Yes answer...
He was invited into the house by one of the owners. It's not breaking and entering. If an angry person is coming towards you with a knife and the only weapon you can find to defend yourself is a gun, or knife, ir bat, then you have every right to use it to defend yourself. You also have the right to state your side of what happened in court.
@@psychohistconsidering she wasn't the (at the time) ex wife, I'm guessing yes. She was. Especially since, allegedly, she gave him a key and entry code
One jury I served on, during deliberations, one guy kept saying "He's guilty because he did not take the stand and say he didnt do it!" I pointed out (several times) that one of the foundations of our legal system is the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the defendant does NOT have to testify. He said "Sure I know all that. But if he was innocent he would have taken the stand and said so, so he must be guilty." I said there could be many reasons why he did not, most lawyers dont want their clients to testify, maybe he stutters or doesnt speak well, maybe the fact the he was black and all of us were white was bothering him. I said obviously I couldnt stop him from thinking this way, but if he kept saying it I would make sure the judge knew about it and there would probably be a mistrial.
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) about how many people like that are on juries. People who don't understand the law or the principles of our justice system. People who do not judge based on facts and evidence but instead on emotion and personal bias. Depending on where you live, it might be better do a bench trial, especially if you have a judge who cares about upholding the law. It's a shame the population has been so dumbed down we can't have fair trials anymore, but it is what it is.
The second time he said that absurd statement you should have passed a note to the judge. Fools like that are why there are alternate jurors. What happened?
@@chrisbudesa But I would point out that the alternates are released before the jury begins deliberations (at least here); it would have been a mistrial.
It is disgusting that so few people have so much control over a single life. This prosecutor and judge single handedly upended decades (centuries?) of precedent, that their actions amount to willful and gross dereliction of their duties. They ought to be charged with misfeasance and never be allowed to run a courtroom ever again. Public reprimand, a stay in prison for at least a long as this defendant spent. I haven't seen the evidence, but to prevent someone from making a reasonable defense is so unconscionable that any case either have worked on ought to be reviewed - at their expense and be made to pay as much as their victims did.
Welcome to the Upside Down. Prosecutor & judge denying a defense. Guilty or not. This should never happen in a Republic. The fact it did happen is proof our Republic is dead. How long has this taken? How long has the defendant been in jail? Absolutely disgusting.
That is true, but hey, at least we are not living in a country where the prosecution wins 99% of cases. Btw, this country I'm talking about isn't some third world dictatorship, it's Japan.
@Mind of a dark horse ---aren't You also forgetting Incompetent Judges AND police Officers there are also most of these citizen jurists, judges, attorneys (No disrespect, Mr. Lehto YOU. Sir are a Rarity of a Unicorn of the court system, An Honest and Principled Gentleman of Character and Integrity) I was simply saying that There are ACTUAL REAL jurists, Judges and attorneys and Police who are voluntarily (secretly) CORRUPT, and only saying and behaving in ways that Shields their own actions towards protecting their own rears!!
@@mind_of_a_darkhorse yes, but Iran is a war torn theocracy. I used Japan as an example because it's a 1st world country, economically stable, and a legitimate democracy, yet even then you could have a justice system, that's worst than ours.
Fletcher: Your Honor, I object! Judge: And why is that, Mr. Reede? Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case! Judge: Overruled. Fletcher: Good call!
