The judge also barred Roeder from presenting as evidence the indictment against the abortion doctor for not obtaining second opinions about the medical necessity of many abortions.
WE WILL GIVE TERROR SUSPECTS EVERY RIGHT POSSIBLE WHILE BARRING THIS CITIZEN'S BASIC RIGHTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE COURT POLITICALLY CORRECT
I hope Roeder's attorney is already preparing an appeal.
The judge withdrew the lesser charges yesterday. The jury can only find Roeder guilty/not guilty on 1st degree murder now.
Anyone know anything about this judge?
Actually, making lemonade out of lemons, Roeder’s best defense is not to appear in any way dogmatic, but to testify from an unexpected tangent, which will throw the prosecution off guard, and give him a better chance with the jury.
Since the judge has opened the door wide for him to talk about his beliefs, then he should run with that, expressing beliefs that will attract the attention and interest of the jurors.
For instance, he could imply that, knowingly or not, the abortion doctor was making human sacrifices to ancient, demonic pagan gods. This is based solely on what he was doing, not any avowed participation in a cult, or expressed beliefs of the abortionist, but solely by his actions. It also cannot be rebutted.
And such sacrifices are intended for some cosmic purpose of evil.
Just a thought. I’m sure others could easily come up with some tangential arguments
The word is “blurt” not “blurb.”
Anyway, hearings to determine what evidence can be presented are common in both civil and criminal cases. Although I personally believe that withholding evidence from a jury can cause a bad decision, it looks like what this defendant will testify about (and what he can’t testify about) is reasonable.
"Pro-life acitivist Randall Terry, well-known to Wichitans for organizing the 1991 Summer of Mercy protests, held a press conference outside of the Sedgwick County Courthouse on Thursday. Terry argued that abortion is the reason for the trial of Scott Roeder and that the jury in his trial should be allowed to consider voluntary manslaughter during their deliberations" --from The Wichita Eagle. (Click on video to view.) The guy goes into a church and murders a doctor in cold blood.
Guilty of murder in the first.
Just heard on the radio.
It is the judge’s job to keep irrelevant testimony out of the trial. Abortion is not on trial here, he is — so the specifics of the procedure are not relevant to this trial.
Think of it from a different perpsective ...
The terrorists that Barack is stupidly dragging into American courts ... should they be allowed to take the stand in their defense and spout anti-American propaganda that is fundamentally irrelevant to the question as to whether they were involved in terrorist activity?
The only question before the Court is whether Roeder murdered someone. The victim (scumbag) is not on trial here ... and has likely endured a much more harrowing trial at the foot of the Almighty.
Roeder knew what he was doing when he pulled the trigger ... he should be convicted and imprisoned for life (or executed). He’s no hero.
SnakeDoc
I reckons if you shoots somebody, that gives you the right to speak the truth to power on the stand.
Not as much as he infringed upon the rights of the doctor.