,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The judge's decision allowing the jury to consider a "stand your ground" defense yesterday stunned me, especially because she had seemed so on point otherwise.
Now I think it may have been shrewd move on her part so the defense cannot use it as a grounds for appeal.
Now I think it may have been shrewd move on her part so the defense cannot use it as a grounds for appeal.
The defense will appeal every single legal ruling the judge made in this case.
Some judges don't care to "appeal-proof" their cases. Others do. Appeal-proofing your case means giving the defense more latitude because if you don't, you risk these issues being grounds for appeal.
Some judges don't care to "appeal-proof" their cases. Others do. Appeal-proofing your case means giving the defense more latitude because if you don't, you risk these issues being grounds for appeal.
We all saw this jury was, unlike many, racially diverse, and one that might not automatically acquit a White police officer accused of killing a Black man. If there was a jury that was going to consider this defense best it be this one.
As opposed to the verdict being appealed on that basis (to which I am sure Texas judges would be highly sympathetic) and then being retried by a jury of a completely unknown quantity.
The verdict will of course still be appealed, but this sews up that issue.
The verdict will of course still be appealed, but this sews up that issue.
