- 63,609
- 50,740
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
someone told him about teachable moments
and now he cant get off it
and now he cant get off it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
decade???
nah give her at least 25
same
i dont like dude
he "seems" like a bumbling lawyer
cause 10 yearsYeah 25 was sticking in my head too...Think that might be the number...
Can't believe they brought pookie moms up to the stand. Trippin.Give her 33 years for every black character witness she had
Just trying to deflect from the facts...Same thing with that Mariachi Band line too...
On a side note the fact that the judge allowed the castle doctrine to be a usable defense, so that it couldn’t be used in a future appeal is fantastic...
Based on what standard of review the court will utilize to review her appeal, this may or may not have an effect. They'll argue for a completely de novo review, which they won't get. From the lowest to the highest standard of review, jury instructions and matters of law decided by a judge are rarely called into question or overturned and are shown deference the majority of the time, unless they are clearly erroneous. All this to say, whether she allowed it or not, it wouldn't have much if not any affect on her appeal.
No worries on the typo; and I clerked for an appeals judge, so I know a little bit! Regarding your question, unless there's an issue that is fundamental to the case that caused an erroneous outcome, the facts, strategy nor pleadings are taken into account in an appeal. So for her appeal to be granted, her attorneys will have to write an appellate brief (this is what's reviewed before they even think about hearing oral arguments or anything further) that outlines and convinces the appellate judge that the lower court that issued decision made an error that was fundamental to the outcome of the case ; and this error can't be an issue of fact (whether or not they agree with evidence presented), strategy (what objections were made, not made, defenses presented or not presented). So basically, her attorney's choice of defense wouldn't even come into question unless she was granted an appeal de novo, which definitely isn't going to happen.I miss-typed there...I meant that the judge allowed the jury to weigh that as an option...Your obviously more well versed in this stuff than I am, but if the jury has that as an option does that mean she can’t come back on a future appeal with the castle doctrine as the basis for her defense? Since the jury weighed in their deliberations that is?
a dub is 20Only a dub