Posted on 10/22/2017 6:48:58 AM PDT by Elderberry
Waco – Dallas lawyer F. Clinton Broden wants this guy Abel Reyna. He’s got the facts, and the facts say there is a federal investigation underway, looking into the legal ethics of the sitting elected Criminal District Attorney, who is accused of political opportunism in his quest to prosecute members of the biker community, namely Matt Clendennen, former Scimitar, who was busted on May 17, 2015.
It’s true. We have the paperwork to prove it. In a protracted series of appeals to the Attorney General of Texas’ Open Records Division dating back to the summer of 2015, we of The Legendary obtained an example of a smoking gun left in the record by an assistant prosecutor named Joe Layman. Before he left under a cloud, fired by Abel Reyna, he noted on a disposition sheet that a certain party’s case had been dismissed because he made a political contribution to the campaign war chest of the DA.
(Excerpt) Read more at radiolegendary.com ...
No I didn't and I suspect neither did you.
Which two officers are you referring to and where did you see that testimony?
Uh...and if memory serves I *think* there may have been mention there was no GSR (gun-shot residue) found on Carrizal's hands...
Again who's testimony are you referring to?
-fwiw Waco Trib is live tweeting the trial so it pretty easy to verify what you're saying.
She began the question with the words "You know..." and ended with "don't you?".
She was selling the idea, leading the witness to agree with the statement (that came from police in the first place) without herself saying that was what happened.
You're still wrong. The defense attorney did not say that the police saved lives that day.
Here's what you failed to include.
Jackson said he was not there in his capacity as a SWAT sniper. However, after the violence erupted, he grabbed his rifle, chambered a round and went to work as a "counter-sniper" in an effort to eliminate threats and save lives.
After that came the question from Gotro, framed as it was. She was digging into what the officer had just said. She was not the source of the statement. Her question was aimed towards stressing what the officer himself perceived he was at the time doing.
It's not myself who lacks "reading comprehension" here.
Don't ever whine about 'selective quoting" again, Princess. Without that technique you'd have not much to troll people here with.
“After that came the question from Gotro, framed as it was. She was digging into what the officer had just said. She was not the source of the statement. Her question was aimed towards stressing what the officer himself perceived he was at the time doing.”
Again she stated he saved lives. She did not ask if he believed he saved lives. She asked him if he knew the fact that he had saved lives.
Why would you say that? Did Tommy Witherspoon miss including it? He may have -- but one of the other two who had been reporting on what they had seen and heard did mention it. Of that I am certain. Trouble is, I cannot recall at the moment exactly who and where it was reported.
He's not the only source, and is far from providing full transcript. So, if you there is lack of Witherspoon having mentioned these things, that is not evidence of there having been lack of such having been testified to within the trial.
Again you lie through distortion. Maybe you really are too stupid to realize just what it is you're doing.
She was repeating back to the officer a portion of what the officer had just said -- for emphasis.
I just showed you that part, Princess.
Sorry you can't wrap your pea brain around that distinction.
The attorney is not a witness -- she cannot offer testimony.
What she did was draw out a particular part of the officer's testimony, leading the officer to agree with a portion of his own statement. For sake of clarity and emphasis of what was being testified to.
That being said -- Gotro may herself agree with that point of view. Yet still, it was not herself who had said such a thing. Her question was repeating back to the officer what he had said in sentence fragment, drawing that further out for confirmation that that was the officer's testimony.
“She was repeating back to the officer a portion of what the officer had just said — for emphasis.”
Really? You think that maybe you believe that you remember that?
Give me a link.
The Judge effectively said; "don't do that" "don't say 'gangster gunfight'.
Even he was getting sick of hearing it.
It's like ---prove it with evidence instead of all the labeling and name-calling. And then let's see just how far evidence may or may not apply to this particular defendant (or any particular defendant for that matter).
Which is much what many of us here have been asking for. Real evidence pertaining to specific individuals, instead of impugning guilt that blankets each and defendant through use of crude innuendo.
Comprehend this:
1. The indictment or information shall be read to the jury by the attorney prosecuting. When prior convictions are alleged for purposes of enhancement only and are not jurisdictional, that portion of the indictment or information reciting such convictions shall not be read until the hearing on punishment is held as provided in Article 37.07.
Generally speaking, prior convictions are not admissible as evidence that a defendant is guilty of a crime they're presently being charged with, for reason that mentions of such would serve to confuse a jury and unduly prejudice them.
In the instance of showing images of patches and the like (which was allowed by Judge Johnson) followed by "expert testimony" of what bad guys bikers are, it can be even worse, because it's not speaking towards past crimes that a particular defendant had been tried and found guilty of (which would be inadmissible) but is so closely akin to being hearsay evidence regarding yet others who are not on trial, it's difficult to distinguish from hearsay, and even worse, it's form of hearsay that is not necessarily applicable to particular individual defendant.
How can anyone defend themselves against such type of loose, guilt-by-association allegations? The "hey, look at all those other guilty persons! the defendant must be guilty too!" is like introducing into Court prior convictions as evidence itself, yet the prior 'convictions' allowed to enter into the record because they do not narrowly apply to a particular defendant even as it's being used to prejudice a jury against a particular defendant.
The jury is by law assigned to be finders of fact(s) pertinent to whatever crime a defendant is charged with committing.
Being a member of a "gang" is not a crime, in and of itself. There must be other acts, actual commission of crime perpetrated by a defendant (for which they would be specifically accused) -- even under Section 71 of the criminal code. Mere association alone is not enough. The individual must have been a knowing part of a combination, either in planning stage, or in action at the scene of a crime. OR-- was profiting in a monetary (fiduciary) sense from a specific criminal act that they were being charged with committing.
I have no hope that you'd ever more properly understand the law. I am hoping others will. Otherwise I'd not bother with responding to your ongoing display of dull-thud-ness.
“There must be other acts, “
Like murder, assault, child-porn ...
” and even worse, it’s form of hearsay that is not necessarily applicable to particular individual defendant.”
I would say a “Support Bandidos” would be applicable ...
Well you mentioned there were two other sources, who/what are they?
“How can anyone defend themselves against such type of loose, guilt-by-association allegations? “
Wearing a patch of a street gang is NOT a loose association.
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.