Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Irrelevant. The fact that his foot is anywhere on her person makes it battery.
My issue is the "head stomping" statements. He did not stomp her head. It's not irrelevant to the topic at hand, perhaps in the courtroom b/c he did put his foot on her, but I really wish everyone would stop saying it's something that it's not. He never touched her head and I'm waiting for someone to show me where he did.
It's not okay to intrude upon someone else's personal space. If I was driving down the street, slowing down for a light and someone rushed MY car, I sure as HELL would want someone to restrain the person! Cop or not, I want the person off. If there is security at an event to protect a candidate, then yes, someone rushing the car is a big deal. They're not going to get shot at by the secret service or anything, but jeeeze, that doesn't mean it's okay.
What if the person just wanted to tell you there was flames coming from the back
of your car? jeeeze!
Served on six, and tried cases before several dozen of them.
Quote:
If you have, you would know that the lawyers can bring up prior history/offenses to go to the state of mind of the people involved.
Not in a case like this. And yes, I do know. I draft jury instructions. Lawyers can bring up prior offenses of the DEFENDANT under certain circumstances, and can bring up the prior offenses of a alleged victim in certain VERY limited circumstances during cross. None of those circumstances apply here.
Quote:
The woman was there to cause a problem.
Or she was there exercising her free speech rights. However you cast it, it's not material to whether a battery was committed on her. She's not on trial, and the judge is not going to let the defense go there.
Quote:
It was not innocent what she did.
Doesn't matter. It still isn't justification for battery. Her subjective intent is COMPLETELY irrelevant. What she actually DID may be.
Quote:
Unless the judge rules against bringing up this information, it is fair game.
I doubt the defense, unless they are stupid, will try to do that. I wouldn't risk my credibility with the judge and jury on an ad hominem attack on the victim. Not in a battery trial. Not worth it, and it won't work.
Quote:
The story behind her being there rounds out the story and would be important for a jury to hear.
Nope. That's why we have jury instructions and evidence codes.
Nope. That's why we have jury instructions and evidence codes.
And what's to stop the jury members from finding out about her past? Unless these people live in a cave, they probably are already familiar with the case. I'm sorry but jury instructions that include wearing blinders to verifiable facts is a miscarriage of justice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
