SSorry, it was on another thread, which I can’t locate at the moment.
Notice the article talks about two different things, OAD’s drug activity PRIOR to the incident in question and activity after. The article mixes up the two, even in the same statement or paragraph, so it’s almost impossible to make heads or tails of it.
I say so because alleged drug activity PRIOR to the incident would be the first I heard of it...not that they don’t have something, it’s just I’ve never seen this even form ardent supporters. That kind of evidence WOULDbe not only admissabl but important as it contradicts his statements about being a rookie.
It’s important because the additional drug run in October would have little impact on OAD’s statements at trial that this one was his first and that he wanted money for an operation for his mother. That could still ring true to jurors.
Now, I don’t believe this statement from OAD, I think it is something he cooked up to make his position look less intimidating. But the fact is unless they have solid evidence (like a previous conviction) it’s hard to rebut it.
Am I right in concluding that you think that testimony that goes to the character of a witness is not admissible?