No, his brother being in jail without bond (murder, rape, aggravated battery - no bond means real poor behavior) is not legally relevant - nor is his cousin sitting in prison relevant - but it goes to character of potential witnesses like his family - the family who lied and said he was just out for his daily jog to stay in good health - the family that is so utterly shocked by all this - meanwhile, arrests, jail and prison are the family routine - now they're completely flabbergasted that there sweetheart could end up gunned down for jogging while black
I did see several people say the guy was always goofing around playing pranks like he had a good heart - so who really knows
This is such an interesting case and like all the other cases involving a shooting, I'm pretty certain there are many other facts the prosecutors and police have that we don't know about that may change all of our opinions.
Was the guy casing a house under construction? Pretty clearly yes.
Does that matter? Well yes, it may explain why the father and son went after the guy.
Can the father and son legally go after him? We aren't Georgia law experts but from what I'm reading, yes they can.
Are the father and son dumbasses for going after him with guns? Yes they are.
Was the kid out for a jog that day as the media would have you believe? Nope.
When they pulled up next to him, was he scared? Hell, I would be but I would've run the opposite direction of a gun not towards it.
Was the gunmen or the kid the aggressor? I'd say the kid went toward the gun and the gunmen went at him and mutual combat took place. Both were at fault.
Did the gunmen go there with the intent to shoot him? No way. In my opinion, no way.
What about the dad? Well, unless they had a plan to commit a crime against the kid on their way to confront him, he's walking free.
But this case isn't as clear as the media would have you believe it is.
Was the guy casing a house under construction? Pretty clearly yes.
Does that matter? Well yes, it may explain why the father and son went after the guy.
Can the father and son legally go after him? We aren't Georgia law experts but from what I'm reading, yes they can.
Are the father and son dumbasses for going after him with guns? Yes they are.
Was the kid out for a jog that day as the media would have you believe? Nope.
When they pulled up next to him, was he scared? Hell, I would be but I would've run the opposite direction of a gun not towards it.
Was the gunmen or the kid the aggressor? I'd say the kid went toward the gun and the gunmen went at him and mutual combat took place. Both were at fault.
Did the gunmen go there with the intent to shoot him? No way. In my opinion, no way.
What about the dad? Well, unless they had a plan to commit a crime against the kid on their way to confront him, he's walking free.
But this case isn't as clear as the media would have you believe it is.
It looks like there are cases where they will admit previous convictions into evidence.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...dmissible-against-defendants-who-testify.html
Prior convictions are admissible if: (1) they are felony convictions and the probative value ofthe evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, or (2) they are convictions for crimes involvingdishonesty or false statement. FED. R. EVw. 609. Indeed, Rule 609's slightly different balancing testis generally read as tilting against admission of prior conviction evidence. See Jeffrey Bellin,Circumventing Congress: How the Federal Courts Opened the Door to Impeaching CriminalDefendants with Prior Convictions, 42 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 289, 309 (2008)
Apparently the idea that previous convictions should not be allowed as evidence is a quirk of the American justice system.
I think it should be allowed as evidence.
In the majority of legal systems in the developed world, triers-of-factare routinely made aware of the prior convictions of the accused. In theUnited States, the admission of evidence of prior crimes is much moredifficult, facing a multitude of hurdles. According to Federal Rules ofEvidence (FRE) Rule 404, prior crimes categorically cannot be used toshow character in order to prove “action in conformity therewith” or toshow a propensity to illegal acts (unless defendant triggers a discussion ofcharacter), and they must also pass the Rule 403 balancing test, which rulesout such evidence if the judge concludes that it is substantially moreunfairly prejudicial than probatory. If a defendant takes the stand, priorconvictions can be used as evidence that he is a liar under Rule 609—subject to the exceptions spelled out in Rule 404(b)—but generally not asevidence that he committed the crime with which he is charged.2The exclusion of prior crimes is not an occasional quirk of theAmerican legal system. It is the rule rather than the exception. In nine outof ten jury trials of defendants with prior convictions in which thedefendant does not testify, the jury never learns about the prior convictionsthrough evidence.3Certain aspects of American evidence law—and considerableAmerican evidence scholarship—are founded on a widely-shared set ofbeliefs concerning the admission of prior crimes of the defendant.
Most ofthese beliefs are predicated on hypotheses about the perverse inferentialpsychology of jurors when it comes to evaluating prior crimes information.Others are founded, not on presumed juror psychology, but on dubiousepistemic hypotheses about the probatory strength of prior crimes evidence.Moreover, there is substantial handwringing about the difficult choicedefendants face about taking the stand in their own defense: if a defendanttakes the stand, he risks being destroyed by his prior convictions; if he doesEven in trials where the defendant takes the stand, thejury learns of his priors only about half the time. Since more than half ofdefendants who go to trial have prior convictions, we are talking aboutmassive exclusions of prima facie relevant evidence.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7395&context=jclc
I think it should be allowed as evidence.
In the majority of legal systems in the developed world, triers-of-factare routinely made aware of the prior convictions of the accused. In theUnited States, the admission of evidence of prior crimes is much moredifficult, facing a multitude of hurdles. According to Federal Rules ofEvidence (FRE) Rule 404, prior crimes categorically cannot be used toshow character in order to prove “action in conformity therewith” or toshow a propensity to illegal acts (unless defendant triggers a discussion ofcharacter), and they must also pass the Rule 403 balancing test, which rulesout such evidence if the judge concludes that it is substantially moreunfairly prejudicial than probatory. If a defendant takes the stand, priorconvictions can be used as evidence that he is a liar under Rule 609—subject to the exceptions spelled out in Rule 404(b)—but generally not asevidence that he committed the crime with which he is charged.2The exclusion of prior crimes is not an occasional quirk of theAmerican legal system. It is the rule rather than the exception. In nine outof ten jury trials of defendants with prior convictions in which thedefendant does not testify, the jury never learns about the prior convictionsthrough evidence.3Certain aspects of American evidence law—and considerableAmerican evidence scholarship—are founded on a widely-shared set ofbeliefs concerning the admission of prior crimes of the defendant.
Most ofthese beliefs are predicated on hypotheses about the perverse inferentialpsychology of jurors when it comes to evaluating prior crimes information.Others are founded, not on presumed juror psychology, but on dubiousepistemic hypotheses about the probatory strength of prior crimes evidence.Moreover, there is substantial handwringing about the difficult choicedefendants face about taking the stand in their own defense: if a defendanttakes the stand, he risks being destroyed by his prior convictions; if he doesEven in trials where the defendant takes the stand, thejury learns of his priors only about half the time. Since more than half ofdefendants who go to trial have prior convictions, we are talking aboutmassive exclusions of prima facie relevant evidence.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7395&context=jclc
It's more for sentencing - but yeah, if ur charged with arson and u have 3 priors for arson - those are going to be admitted - but here the prior gun thing seems like any evidential value it could have would be far outweighed by the prejudicial value - but I'm not on the jury - I want to know everything - not just what gets admitted into court - if I found out 5 years ago this guy shot up a high school football game - then I don't need to hear anything else in this case - my opinion of what happened would automatically be made up
I posted earlier today, or maybe yesterday that the shooters will be convicted of manslaughter.
Now I'm not so sure. It's very clear that the narrative presented by the MSM has been complete bullshit.
But, you can be rest assured, that there will be race-baiters creating riots. and hysteria in this case, I
can guarantee it. I would bet money on it.
No matter what those guys get charged with, and no matter what (if any) time they get behind bars,
it won't be enough to satisfy the race-baiters that want to make a political issue out of it.
AND, no matter what happens they will blame baaaaaad owaaaange man.
Now I'm not so sure. It's very clear that the narrative presented by the MSM has been complete bullshit.
But, you can be rest assured, that there will be race-baiters creating riots. and hysteria in this case, I
can guarantee it. I would bet money on it.
No matter what those guys get charged with, and no matter what (if any) time they get behind bars,
it won't be enough to satisfy the race-baiters that want to make a political issue out of it.
AND, no matter what happens they will blame baaaaaad owaaaange man.
prior embezzlement would probably be admitted for another embezzlement charge - seems like a it's a unique pattern - but someone who was convicted of assualt and now charged with murder doesn't seem like it shows a pattern and admitting the prior assualt into the murder case would have a greater prejudicial effect than a probative effect
