Posted on 12/25/2024 7:51:14 PM PST by xxqqzz
welcome once again to Leo's law here's Steve leato Ronnie sent me notes that Steve check out this case out of tax ass 0:07 going to blow your mind and my mind was blown okay this is going to be a longer video but trust me it's worth it because 0:14 you've got a crazy crazy set of facts where a man got charged with a crime and 0:20 when he went to court the prosecutors asked the judge they said your honor this guy wants to raise some defenses we 0:26 don't think he should be allowed to raise them and so we want a motion eliminate I'll explain that in a second to prevent him from raising a couple 0:33 particular defenses and the trial judge said okay now 0:39 usually if you make a ruling like that you have a hearing first where you actually ask the defense which of these 0:45 arguments are you going to use if any and do you have any evidence to back them up and if you do then you're allowed to use them I if the prosecution 0:53 can simply walk in the court and say your honor we've decided not to let them use these defenses and the judge goes 0:58 okay um how is that a fair trial that's not how it works but this is not even 1:05 from a news story because Ronnie sent me the link to the opinion okay and the opinion is by the 1:14 Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas so this is the opinion on appeal this case has what we call tortured history it's
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Defendant claimed he was having an affair with the homeowner's wife and she asked him to feed the cats, which she had done before. He had the key to the house and the passcode. Claims the husband came in and he did in a closet. Claims husband was holding a knife and he shot husband with a gun that was in the closet.
Story seems weird, but also weird that he was a burglar. However, he wasn't allowed to present it to the jury.
Maybe got harsher sentence for pleading not guilty. Seems like he was railroaded by judge and prosecutor.
A prosecutor would typically go for a harsher sentence as part of the punishment process if the accused is forcing the system to through the trouble of a trial in hopes getting a Hail-Mary defense.
While I can accept the harsher punishment for a needless trial, if the prosecutor has the goods, I can’t see it being Constitutional for denying somebody their right to mount a defense.
It violates every concept of justice to be forbidden certain arguments no matter how ridiculous. You should be able to argue the neighbor’s dog told you to do it...
Let the jury decide.
wasn’t this overturned by appeals court?
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1972621.html
Self defense is not a valid defense if the case is as presented.
He broke in to another man’s house and hid in a closet which shows he knew he was trespassing.
Burglars don’t have a right to defend themselves against a homeowner.
Barring the self defense claim is perfectly valid.
But I do agree that judges feel far too free to bar valid defenses in cases with no justification for it.
If the “burglar” knew the lay of the house from previous visits to the wife, fair chance he knew where a gun was kept and “hid” there.
They did the same thing to Alex Jones. He was not allowed to plead innocent. The judge deemed him guilty and told the jury their only job was to decide how many billions of dollars he owed to the plaintiffs.
>>He broke in to another man’s house
He didn’t “break into” the house, if I understand the description above.
He opened the door with a key given him by another lawful occupant of the house (the wife).
Yeah, that was probably the judge and prosecutor’s rationale, that burglars don’t have a right to self defense. However, he had the key to the house, so was likely not a burglar.
Pretty stupid of him and his girlfriend for him to feed the cats when she and her husband were gone, if that was true.
I know! He and his wife are in Aruba or something:
HUSBAND: Damn! I forgot to get someone to feed the cats! Did you take care of it?
WIFE: Oh! Err, uh...yeah. I uh...
HUSBAND: Whew. Good thing. Who did you get?
WIFE: Um. Yeah. Uh, you remember Billy, who I was talking with in that store a few weeks ago when you asked me who he was? You asked if it was some random guy I was having an affair with, because you said I "looked kind of cozy with him"?
HUSBAND: Uhhh. Yeah?
WIFE: Yeah. That guy.
Ty Cobb’s mother supposedly shot his father when the father was sneaking around to catch her cheating. No one was charged. Cobb is supposed to have said that his mother’s lover shot his father.
“It violates every concept of justice to be forbidden certain arguments no matter how ridiculous. You should be able to argue the neighbor’s dog told you to do it...”
You would sing a different tune if a burglar shot you in your house and claimed self defense ...
Criminals cant claim self defense while committing the crime. Plain and simple. Plus I am all for recriminalizing all parties involved in adultery/affairs.
Obvious defense? That he killed a homeowner while hiding in a closet because he was afraid the homeowner would use a knife? No kidding he wasn’t allowed to present a self-defense case! That’s not self-defense! I don’t know if some procedures were violated in how it was determined that it’s not a viable defense, but the grave miscarriage of justice would be if this guy got off.
Yes but the husband didnt know otherwise and by the husband he was a trespasser who the husband would never have allowed in or allowee to screw his cheating wife.
If he wasn’t a trespasser why did he hide in a closet from the other lawful homeowner? The other two conspired to hide the affair and tried to hide himself physically. If i found someone i didnt let in, in my house hiding in a closet theres no right to self defense for them.
I liked it.
Yeah, I see the reason why they didn’t allow self defense. It wasn’t presented objectively in the video. However, if he had a key, he probably wasn’t a burglar.
Not a good idea to go into your married lover’s house. It is obvious all sorts of bad things can happen from it.
The core of the defense argument would have been 1) the husband knew who he was, 2) knew he wasn't there to commit burglary but just to feed the cats. 3) Took the opportunity presented by the guy being in the house to try kill the guy who was having sex with his wife. Because that killing would not have been legally justified, self-defense would have been an appropriate defense.
Personally, I think the judge just decided on his own that the husband was justified in killing the guy who was banging his wife, and these rulings were intended to ensure that the cheater didn't get off.
Pun intended.
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.
