|
Kalit posted:As Ravenfood stated, the may in the statement is carrying a lot of weight. Which is why I stated that this just meant to bring it up in appeals. That's far, far different than claiming Judge Cahill saying it is cause for the case to get overturned, like you previously stated. Defense was arguing for a mistrial because of the statement. Judge shot that down, but he's not the person appeals will be going through. He can't and shouldn't be preemptively ruling on that. There's a reading of the judge's comments that's pretty sarcastic, in a "go ask your dad if he'll let you skip school tomorrow if the moon explodes" sort of way. It's the defense's job to open avenues for appeals, so in a weird way if they didn't ask there might be an argument that they weren't doing their job properly? Law can be fukkin weird, and almost always involves context that both Maxine's comments and the judge's response aren't being given.
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
In isolation, there's an argument that the cop did the right thing shooting that girl. Eminent danger, defense of others, etc. But that's not where the anger is coming from. There was a SERIES of systemic failures that landed Ma'Khia in that situation. Foster care, with adults around her who weren't helping, and an argument that she thought was going to escalate to the point where she called the cops about it. This shooting doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in an environment where a cop who tortured and slowly murdered a black man on camera didn't think he did anything wrong, and appeared SHOCKED that he was found guilty an HOUR before this went down. An environment where cops have gotten away with shooting African Americans with no repercussions for LITERAL DECADES. No individual circumstances can negate that. An environment where cops have been killing 3 people PER DAY during Chauvin's trial. Maybe that cop did everything he was supposed to and that was the right call at the time. That doesn't change the fact that a situation was created that lead to the death of a 16 year old black girl when it shouldn't have, and the police are a part of that situation. It doesn't change that statistically if she'd been white, she'd be alive. Maybe with burn marks or a broken arm, but alive. There is no acceptable path that should have lead to Ma'Khia dying yesterday. Any number of people SHOULD have done something before it reached the point of her being murdered by the the cops she called 15 minutes earlier. That's why we're loving pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I doubt a successful appeals will happen and there is a near 0% chance of a new jury trial actually occurring. The judge dismissed all objections along these lines, of course that could also be because the judge wanted to continue course and wanted to punt everything to appeals to sort through later. From what I can tell, this is his legal team covering their asses. There's no argument left when they get a ruling back from the court of "After checking all 13 complaints, he's still going to jail". If they didn't appeal, then in a couple of years he might be able to argue "Well, my defense at the time didn't REALLY defend me that well, so I want a retrial on those grounds." and start the whole shitshow up again.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Aegis posted:Sorta. It's likely not so much rear end-covering in a direct sense as it is what's called "preservation of error." In short, if you didn't object to a matter when it first comes up (or if you fail to get a clear ruling from the judge and just kind of roll with it) you usually can't raise that matter on appeal. So, if you have arguments you want to make on appeal (or at least want to ensure that you will have that opportunity) you need raise the matter when the opportunity comes up under the applicable rules of procedure. All I'm reading is "Lawyers and judges have an entire rulebook about rear end-covering.". 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 17:59
|
|