I think it’s more likely that the jury will vote to acquit just based on lack of evidence combined with police misconduct (and incompetence).
The evidence they’ve publicly talked about is both itself fishy and has chain of custody issues.
Normally they’d be able to get away with that because most defendants can’t afford good legal representation and most cases don’t get much scrutiny.
In this case, however, I think those issues completely sink the prosecution’s case and he’ll be acquitted just because the jury won’t believe he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
They didn’t Miranda him. Maybe they didn’t want to Miranda him.
What?
Miranda warning is for custodial interrogations, they don’t have to read it to you if they aren’t asking questions or if its non-custodial (you weren’t under arrest). And only those statements made under a custodial interrogation would be inadmissible, everything else would still be admissible, including the gun and manifesto that they supposedly found on him.
But to what scrutiny, precisely? If a judge decides that certain specific problems with the evidence are inadmissible (including police misconduct and chain of custody issues), what other scrutiny could be given to the evidence?
Judges already have a lot of leeway over how they run trials even within the law, and we’re talking about a country that has removed even the pretence of rule of law in the past six months (more, if we go back to the Trump v United States ruling last year).
I think it’s more likely that the jury will vote to acquit just based on lack of evidence combined with police misconduct (and incompetence).
The evidence they’ve publicly talked about is both itself fishy and has chain of custody issues.
Normally they’d be able to get away with that because most defendants can’t afford good legal representation and most cases don’t get much scrutiny.
In this case, however, I think those issues completely sink the prosecution’s case and he’ll be acquitted just because the jury won’t believe he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If at least half of what his lawyer claimed is true and able to be proven in court, he has a decent chance.
The way it’s described sounded like he was on his way to the next one. Why else would you carry all of that with you?
They didn’t Miranda him. Maybe they didn’t want to Miranda him.
What?
Miranda warning is for custodial interrogations, they don’t have to read it to you if they aren’t asking questions or if its non-custodial (you weren’t under arrest). And only those statements made under a custodial interrogation would be inadmissible, everything else would still be admissible, including the gun and manifesto that they supposedly found on him.
This is assuming that everything you’ve just described is permitted into evidence.
No it doesn’t. He’s innocent until proven guilty.
The evidence presented by the prosecution has to stand up to scrutiny, and it won’t.
But to what scrutiny, precisely? If a judge decides that certain specific problems with the evidence are inadmissible (including police misconduct and chain of custody issues), what other scrutiny could be given to the evidence?
Judges already have a lot of leeway over how they run trials even within the law, and we’re talking about a country that has removed even the pretence of rule of law in the past six months (more, if we go back to the Trump v United States ruling last year).