[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-03, 15:23, said:

I can say that had I been on the jury, the statements that she made would not have been convincing.

Interesting. If I was on the jury, I would consider the credit card and driver's license as evidence that the accused was within several miles of the murder, near the time it happened. No more than that. If that was all the evidence, no conviction from me. I assume there was more, else I can hardly believe the prosecutor would bring it to trial.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-03, 09:47, said:

Looking over the materials Leona laid out, I saw that the prosecution's evidence included the fact that her client's credit card was used to buy gasoline in a town close to the murders on the day of the murders and that his driver's license was used there to verify his identity. When I asked Leona about that, she bristled immediately.

"All that proves is that my client's credit card and driver's license were there that night! That proves nothing about my client!"

Well, it depends on the details, I suppose. If the license "was used to verify his identity" I suppose that means someone looked at a license, presumably (?) with his picture on it, and thought that the picture matched his face. Of course it's tru that sometimes these identity checks are pretty casual but it seems implausible that soneone else was using his identity. So then we aks about " her client's credit card was used to buy gasoline". This means the card was run through a machine that recorded the numbers? Ok, maybe someone stole his credit card and his driver's license, used use to the card to buy gasoline, and used the license to make the cc work. A pretty cool customer, just for the pleasure of a tank of gas. Now did the client notice that he was missing his cc and his license?


I think that I would be willing to conclude, absent some further stuff that I haven't heard, that the client bought some gas at the indicated station. That doesn't mean he killed anyone but if he is claiming he was never anywhere near the place I think I would not believe that More evidence would be required to convict him, but it seems like a plausible argument that he was in the area and if there are other reasons, death threats or money or whatever that would provide some motive, I think we are getting there. Still not enough, but we are getting there.

So Leona would be upset with me also, I guess. I can be upsetting. But if she is going to argue to a jury that the gas purchase has no value at all, I will have done her the favor of saying that this would probably not fly with me. Better look elsewhere. Or maybe use pre-emptive challenges against 75 year old retired profs.

I'm sure we could cope with the clash and move on to another drink. Intensity doesn't bother me. Much. Usually.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2014-March-03, 15:52, said:

Interesting. If I was on the jury, I would consider the credit card and driver's license as evidence that the accused was within several miles of the murder, near the time it happened. No more than that. If that was all the evidence, no conviction from me. I assume there was more, else I can hardly believe the prosecutor would bring it to trial.

The defense, as I recall, was that the client was in Iowa at the time of the murders, and that there was insufficient time for him to have gone to the west coast, committed the murders, and returned to Iowa between the times that the defense witnesses claimed to have seen him in Iowa.

Of course Leona had a great deal of additional information, as did the prosecution, and this conversation occurred many years ago. It is simply this particular exchange that stayed with me. It's possible that Leona's anger was at least partly in reaction to the manner in which I questioned her. That happens sometimes.

As Leona portrayed the trial, the prosecution had entered the motorcycle as evidence and it sat in the courtroom in full view of the jurors, lighted (in Leona's opinion) in a way to make appear as sinister as possible.

[billw55]

A relevant news item

Apparently, one governor at least has decided to bypass his AG who declined to defend an SSM ban. Although, there seems to be no move to dismiss or otherwise punish the AG. In fact the governor's comments as quoted in the article give no indication of an anti-SSM position.