Posted on 06/18/2015 1:53:51 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Defense attorneys for Colorado theater shooter James Holmes want to severely limit the testimony of a woman who was paralyzed, suffered a miscarriage, and whose 6-year-old daughter died in the attack.
They say significant parts of Ashley Moser's testimony will unfairly bias jurors because they are too heart-wrenching and emotional.
(Excerpt) Read more at islandpacket.com ...
She is living a hell. Paralyzed, miscarriage and child dies. God please give her some peace.
hmmm..sounded in the whole article like she was initially paralyzed but regained movement. I dont know.
Insane, or evil? Holmes deserves no excuses, and less pity.
“Your Honor, please take pity in your deliberations on my client for murdering his parents. After all, he is an orphan now....”
The purpose of victim testimony is exactly what the lawyer is complaining about. The jurors should be informed in a heart-wrenching and emotional manner about the destructing this evil man created.
“They say significant parts of Ashley Moser’s testimony will unfairly bias jurors because they are too heart-wrenching and emotional.”.........
The real question then is, is she telling the truth? If so, the facts are the facts. Hang that bastard (the shooter) for the entire world to see. Show him no mercy.
Hanging is too humane. Douse him with gas and light him on fire, publicly. Urinate on the remains.
Many states model their evidence rules after the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Colorado. Rule 403 states: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
The reason this rule exists, besides being based off the California Code, is because the jury should come to a verdict base on the facts and not a visceral emotional reaction. In an instance like this the jury may believe he really was insane, but not care. At that point they completely invalidated the intentional component of intentional murder.
bs
A scholarly response. Well, good sir, I shall retort. The point is to exclude evidence that creates “unfair” prejudice. All evidence is prejudicial. That’s the point of evidence, to prove or disprove a material fact. Get enough facts against you and you lose. But if the evidence has a tendency to do more, or something other, than prove or disprove a material fact, it is subject to challenge.
Will the judge exclude her testimony? Probably not. If the prosecution wanted to put on three, four, or five people with substantially similar testimony to hers? Then some would likely be excluded. The prosecutor would then choose the more effective testimony to get their point across.
Didn’t think much of the legal argument.
Btw, your mention of California was really odd. Watching a lot of Court TV doesn’t make someone a legal expert.
Irritating. I’m certainly no legal expert but it does occur to me that the victims the guy shot deserve to have their say in court - all of them. If twenty people testifying constitutes an unfair level of persuasion then maybe - I’m going out on a limb here - maybe he shouldn’t have shot them?
To me a crazy person is more like someone who bolts out of their door with a sock on their hand barking like a dog and ends up floating face down in the river.
This “Joker” knew what he was doing along with the consequences. He should have been executed long ago.
The Federal Rules of Evidence are based on the California Code of Evidence. The FRE Advisory Committee notes frequently reference analogous California sections and state court cases to guide interpretation of the Federal Rules. Before the federal courts used common law evidence rules that were difficult to apply uniformly.
Also, what about Court TV? I don’t watch it.
The rules of evidence were developed over several centuries and are based upon the rules from Anglo-American common law brought to the New World by early settlers.
Anyhow... glad my little "bs" post was enough to spur you to finish your scholarly half-thought-out post.
You are welcome.
Is it possible you believe my post was "half-thought-out" because you only read half of it before replying?
I have nothing to thank you for.
Is it possible you believe my post was "half-thought-out" because you only read half of it before replying?No. You posted a half-thought-out response and then gave us the other half.
As for the link, I am sharing with you where the law originated. Are you anti-information after going on a tangent on this thread?
From that link we can see where you are skimming your information from, not Court TV but Wikipedia. LoL!
Your post...
The Federal Rules of Evidence are based on the California Code of Evidence. The FRE Advisory Committee notes frequently reference analogous California sections and state court cases to guide interpretation of the Federal Rules. Before the federal courts used common law evidence rules that were difficult to apply uniformly.From Wikipedia...
During the twentieth century, projects such as the California Evidence Code and the Uniform Rules of Evidence encouraged the codification of those common law evidence rules.If what you want to do is go off on a tangent to make yourself feel smart by skimming from Wikipedia then good for you, but I don’t see why you needed to ping me and others to it... Other than making an audience for yourself.
When I share information, I shoot people a link so they know where that information is coming from. But hey that’s just me, making an audience to pose is not my thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.