If for no other reason but for this it will behoove us to unite, fight back and vote for Trump so he can make good on h8s promise to clean the swamp. We need more fair federal judges and Condervative Justices who uphold tje Constiturion.
@@soniag4516come on guy. He didn’t clean the swamp the last time he was in. He did literally none of the things he promised. He is the same as Biden and the rest of the politicians
@@soniag4516 Trump has had four years in office. During two of those years, his party held majorities in both the House and Senate. If Trump didn't clean the swamp with the presidency and no one to hold him up in congress and two years to work, why do you still believe he wanted to?
@@diablomineroI think these people genuinely realize these problems will likely get worse under such authority, but are counting on it to only affect people of demographics they wish to see persecuted. There is a major "he's not hurting the right people" subtext in most of their arguments. Notice how they never look up the political affiliation of the judges either and just assume, usually incorrectly.
I keep saying we should hang them; however, everyone starts screaming Klan at me. Which I find confusing since last time I checked I was not a registered member of the Ku Klux Democratic Klan.
"Your honor, it's come to the attention of the Prosecutors that if the Defendant were allowed to use this defense they might win, we'd like them to be unable to do so." Sounds good to me.
"I see the Prosecution's point and agree. I am therefore willing to find the Defendant guilty right now, in order to spare the State time and expense and to preclude the need to empanel a jury."
My eldest son, when he was 18, moved in with a girl that was 4 yrs older. He went to visit her during her lunchtime at her work unexpectantly. Her secret boyfriend showed up while our son & her were talking. He left when she said she couldn’t leave for lunch. The other guy was told that our son was just some guy bothering her. He called the police & pressed stalking charges that she agreed to. Pasadena CA police raided my house that he didn’t live. The trial would not let our lawyer introduce that they lived together because it was not initially introduced, even with proof of utility bills. She made the rent. He went to prison for 2 yrs & released with 10 yrs probation asa felon. Her friend, that was my high school student, told me she had done the same thing to another guy.
I wonder if they were trying to nullify the self defense claim because the defendant was there because of an immoral purpose. I see it to some extent, he was participating in adultery "a crime" claiming self defense. They just went about it all wrong.
sounds like we have a judge who should no longer be allowed to practice law in general. That judge entirely undermined the whole point of trails in general. the very definition of Kangaroo court. That the judge also ignored the order of the appellant court the first time shows that it was intentional. The judge fully intended to deny a citizen their most basic of rights.
Going from 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'guilty until proven innocent' and now to 'guilty, not allowed to proof innocence'. What a great world to live in.
Yeah but this guy had no business being there, and he killed the man who owned the home. WHY did he even carry a gun to feed cats? Sounds like a total bs story.
@@macturner2196 Dude, he said he was invited into the building to feed cats. That’s a reasonable reason to be somewhere, he also said the gun was in the closet already. Don’t just hear, listen.
@@dreamcanvas5321 I stopped caring about the arrested guy, when I heard he was cheating. I don't care if he was asked to feed the cat, or not. Give the scumbag life until 90. So, if he lives that long, he can't destroy more families.
@@macturner2196 he didn't carry a gun there. The owner left his gun on top of the gun safe. He picked it up to defend himself from the owner's knife. ...according to the defendant.
Beyond the absurdity of not allowing a self-defence argument for the charge, the mere fact that the trial court didn't allow for a defendant to argue an alternative interpretation of facts submitted into evidence is probably the grossest miscarriage of justice I've heard about. Literally a kangaroo court.
@@Nick-b7b9s Right? To me it sounds like the husband got ahold of her phone, texted him, deleted it, and fully intended to kill him. WHY WASN'T THIS ALLOWED TO BE ARGUED
It is not absurd at all. He literally admitted he broke into a home and then assaulted that person with a deadly weapon (knife or gun). He claims he only stabbed/shot the person living there in self defense. that is preposterous. How would you feel if someone broke into your home, stabbed you, and then claim he was only stabbing you to defend himself?
Judges seriously need to be held accountable for blatant misconduct in court. Allowing a prosecutor to basically remove the ability for the defendant to make the stance they defended themselves is downright criminal.
We need to end immunity for judges and prosecutors. If they mess up so bad someone ends up in prison, then they need to face criminal charges for something like false imprisonment or kidnapping.
So you want to punish the corrupt or incompetent officials with the system they are corrupting? What could possibly go wrong.. The problem should be fixed by more accurately translating voter desire with outcome. The check on the courts should be people, not the courts. This is in large part due to a strategy by a few politicians, and one man-turtle, to pick and fund campaigns for politically biased judges.
@@cat637d- Qualified Immunity is right and necessary *_when correctly applied._* That is to say, when the official(s) "should reasonably have understood" what is and isn't among the *protected rights of the citizen.* This is a very broad statement, a general principle, WIDELY applicable at all levels of civil and criminal matters, whether or not the Courts are involved.
@@JamesThomas-kx5sj I don't think you understand the law because nothing in that is illegal. Judges can absolutely tell you that you can't use certain lines of reasoning or make certain claims. That is not illegal at all. I'm sorry you don't understand the law but that's the law.
@@archmage7813Those provisions are meant for suppressing irrelevant or false evidence. Not for suppressing legitimate evidence and arguments. This is a miss-use of court procedure and it seems the appeals court agrees that it was a miss-use.
Yes, I'm not really sure how else you serve justice if you don't send it for a new trial with a new judge. The only other reasonable alternative would be to set aside the conviction completely, but I do think that a mistrial is probably the correct remedy.
Honestly, that fact that they tried so hard to supress his ability to claim self-defence makes me think it's true more than anything. Also makes me wonder if the husband knows the prosecutor or the judge personally.
@@mat100ca Which would be just as bad as if they had made that decision because they knew the husband. The moral opinions of the judge and prosecutor should have as much bearing on a jury trail as the price of tea in India. If the judge suppressed that defense because of his personal opinions then that judge directly rigged that trial by eliminating a defense that could have swayed a jury, violating his Sixth Amendment rights. Because how can you have an impartial jury if the jury is only allowed to hear evidence that supports the prosecution and none that supports the defense? The Court of Appeals agreed that the judge was completely in the wrong for suppressing that defense so either the judge made a stupid mistake or he's essentially guilty of Jury Tampering and he's a criminal, the later being the case if he lets personal feelings dictate what evidence he allows into the trial instead of the clearly defined rules of the law.
I actually think this is what it comes down to. The Husband didn't want his wife testifying as that would lead to a public exposure of the infidelity. And the only way to prevent the wife from testifying was to get the the self defense, defense removed. Which then allows for the burglarly charge. To be fair, I think the prosecutor was probably as shocked as the defense his request was granted. But he/she took the win.
It's crazy how prosecutors have a desire to win even at the cost of justice...a great book was written on this subject on why prosecutors and judges fight against releasing people proven innocent from jail called "Blind Injustice". It's written by a former prosecutor who later worked as an attorney for his State's Innocence Project so he has a unique perspective.
It's unfair that the prosecution has essentially unlimited funds, and the defense is limited to what the defendant can afford or a very overked public attorney who has no resources. For that reason, and what you said, prosecutors should come from the same pool as public defenders.
It's completely expected. Prosecutors are graded based on how many convictions and guilty pleas that they get. No one ever gives them credit for "finding the truth." So it incentivizes them to steamroll defendants at all costs. So the times that prosecutors don't go hard on people, it's not because they believe that someone is innocent, but only because they don't think they can win the case and that would hurt their record.
I was charged with a crime I didn’t commit. Even though I had witnesses and overwhelming evidence to support my innocence, the prosecution REFUSED to drop charges, and I was forced to take the case to trial. So dumb. I was found innocent of course, but I had to spend tons of money and time fighting it.
That judge needs to be removed from being a judge and have their law license removed for life and banned nationwide. Their is no way a barely competent judge makes such a bad decision.
I had a friend of mine accused of rape . On the original police report, woman said the man who raped her was clean shaving , middle aged with slightly gray hair. The cops in the area , two separate counties had it in for my friend they picked up my friend. He was 21 , had a mustache and black hair. They pressured him into being in a line up , he asked for a lawyer 3 times. Figuring he had nothing to hide he agreed to be in a line up. The woman picked him out of the line up. He was convicted and spent 7 years in prison maintaining his Innocence . To get out he had to go through classes where he had to admit to what he had done for the consoling. The assistant DA had to excuse himself from the case because he eventually married the woman . The detective on the case was demoted for evidence tampering in another case. While in prison my buddy tried several times to appeal based on the original police report . Court would not allow it .
Always, always, always get an attorney and remain silent. It's not the job of police to set you free, once you've been arrested. At that point, it's their job to gather evidence to prosecute you. It's up to the court and a trial to set you free.
Not justifying what happened but, first of all, that woman was not raped, if she had they could have done a rape kit test and figured out you friend couldn't have been the rapist due to DNA recovered, your friend was set up by that woman. Secondly your buddy completely fucked himself by falsely admitting he did it just to get out of classes, he pretty much has no case anymore. Also, just agreeing to line up was a mistake as well, it was a waste of his time and he got framed for it.
DOES NOT MATTER listen clearly, witness testimony is more solid in maintaining a conviction than anything on earth actual evidence can be reviewed by appeals courts, but not witness testimony the appeals can only look at the information in the best light for the prosecutor, that means the jury is an INFALLIBLE lie detector, called the triers of the facts, who can administer a lie detector from afar, yet a lie detector with any equipment known to man is banned
@@jaredgarbo3679 He was 21 , an orphan and was homeless. He had a public defender . He appealed on the original police report but they would not grant it. It wasn't a lack of an attorney it was lack of money to hire an attorney who would actually fight for him.
He was defending himself from the homeowner, who had every reason to believe he was a burglar/ home invader. The home owner was not committing a crime so how could the defendant be legally defending himself? In general you cannot use self defense ad a defense if you are in the wrong. For instance you cannot start a fight, and then claim you were defending yourself.
@@Aikibiker1 Its because he was lawfully in the house, if his story is true. Since he was there by the wife's request to feed the cats, he did not break the law by entering. Thus, being mistaken for a burglar does not deprive him of his right to defend himself when attacked.
The judges and prosecutors involved in approving these things should be considered a violation of judicial canons etc. Judges just get to violate the rights of the defense without penalty.
I had a similar issue where I was in court and my solicitor (uk) did not turn up - this was 30 years ago long before mobile phones - I was forced to stand for myself and when I asked for a postponement because of this, the prosectution started going on and on about "this trial is already 2 years overdue, wasted enough time etc etc" - When I replied that the reason for the trial being 2 years overdue was because the PROSECUTION had POSTPONED the court date THREE TIMES while getting it's case together, and I was only asking for one, because my solicitor had not turned up, the prosecution objected again, and THE JUDGE DENIED MY PETITION, so I was forced to represent myself. Needless to say I lost and was fined £1500 for a minor traffic violation. It wasnt until years later I found out this was clear grounds for a mistrial and the judge should have given me that postponement. I've never trusted the UK's legal system since. I suggest you don't either. Oh and the nail in the coffin - the person whom had driven me to court told me after the proceedings that he had heard the police officer waiting to give evidence against me say "we're going to nail him to the wall and make an example of him". Still REALLY angers me to think about it.
I just reread what you posted it took me a minute because solicitor in America means the prosecuting attorney nothing else I mean you may see solicitor at law but in court the solicitor is the prosecutor more often than not you're going to see attorney at law I mean he's going to get those cops to solicit those criminals in the court so he can have a job long time friend of mine said you want to get screwed go to the courthouse you want Justice go to the whorehouse
You should have taken all the names and court transcripts and gone to the press and nail the officer, the prosecutor and the corrupt judge to wall and make examples of them.
So the court won't let them plead self defence then when convicted, gives the guy hugely excessive sentences? I'm guessing the Judge got cheated on before and is slightly sore about it.
I guess we should allow self defense as a defense for all homicides, even when the law doesn't merit it, right? Let's allow muggers to raise self defense as a defense the next time some schmuck gets shot for fighting back. That'll teach them.
Similar thing happened to me, Judge flat out refused to see any of my proof for a case and flat out refused to talk with my attorney. Him and the DA were buddy buddy so I got screwed and convicted of crime that never happened. Same judge a few years prior refused to appoint an attorney to a young man who was in jail and the guy ended up taking his own life because of it. Judge was reelected year after year. Corruption is a terrible thing.
That's the downside of living in a small town. Police and courts get away with all sorts of abuses. Make a bunch of money and put them in federal court. It's the only thing you can do about it when they actually are corrupt. Otherwise they can just railroad you. You should also stay somewhere other than your address while it happens. Police don't fight fair.
I am assuming it was small enough thing that it wasn't worth putting the time and effort to go through appeals court. That's how those small towns nickel-and-dime you
@@MB-xe8bbso you would rather have apointed judges? So bad people can getvtheir bad friends apointed as judge? You want to take away power from voters?
The courts did that to me when I filed for divorce against my wife. My divorce and consequential child support case was in court over 45 times in the course of 10 years. That included many continuances, which I had to take time off from work for. I started working 3rd shift just so that I could go to court at 9am in the morning. But to make it short, I saw paperwork at some point that had my ex-wife's name as the plaintiff and me as the defendant. I brought original court documents to court after I saw that, and I asked the Judge to have CPS undo what they had illegally done, altering and modifying legal documents. The Judge took one look at my original documentation and scorned the CPS to have that changed immediately.
And that's all?! Gah, I hate the CPS. I was taken by them at the age of 2, and I still remember clearly what it cost me. They're corrupt, and disgusting.
There is a conflict of right in this case which is why it is a criminal case. This is a complicated case because of the involvement of adultery and that both burglary and assault were involved.
@@RhizometricReality This is not an example of that as the appeals court is also a state actor. The prosecutor and lower judge are incompetent or malicious and should possibly be removed from their respective office. That would depend on their history as it is human to err.
@@kerwinbrown4180 no, this was a boyfriend and a husband assault case. The fact that they want to put this man away for 60 years is ridiculous given they won't even let him defend himself.
Why more horrifying? You may go to jail for a crime, when innocent but in family court you can go to jail, or have everything taken away, for many years. You may be subject to a never ending vindictiveness.
And, in a family law case, the real victims are the children! At least in criminal law you have a court of appeals. And in family law, there isn't any Court of appeals! The judges in my case in particular, side stepped the standard practice, violated my rights and don't give a fuck the impact on my kids! And then the judges have absolute immunity!? My kid can't even sue the judge in civil court down the road!
@@barongerhardt I live in Rhode Island and we don't vote for our judges they're put there by the bar association. So basically lawyers elect the judges and if they're bad the bar association can and do just remove them.
@@barongerhardt it's the bar association. So attorneys elect other attorneys (or themselves, I suppose) to the positions. From the RI Bar Association web site: The Rhode Island Bar Association is a unified bar to which all attorneys licensed to practice in the state, belong. As of January 2019 we have 5,237 active members and 1131 inactive and out-of-state members bringing our total to 6,368. There are currently 154 Associate and/or In House Counsel Memberships. The total of all membership categories is 6,522. An elected House of Delegates meets quarterly and an Executive Committee, which meets monthly to govern the Association. The Association holds an Annual Meeting in June. The "Bar year" runs from July 1 through June 30. In fulfilling its stated purposes, the Bar's programs and activities are designed to serve the needs and interests of the membership, the public and the administration of justice. So I'm not sure if that means they could only remove the judge during their monthly meeting or if they would hold a.... Tribunal? To revoke a bar license. But you could lose your law license even as a judge and that would disqualify you from being a judge. In other words here being a judge means you have to be a lawyer first. Not just any lawyer, a lawyer that has the respect of his or her fellow lawyers. This judge would be in hot water if they did that here. I don't even know if they could go back to being a regular lawyer after something like that. If they did it multiple times they'd have to go somewhere else. Probably your state where they could win an election saying things like they'd be tough on crime LOL 🤣. I'm sorry it's really not funny..... It it's probably more true than we would like. But you guys could change the law in your state.... I think it might be a good idea to consider it anyway. At least make a requirement that you have to be a lawyer to run to be a judge. I'm baffled at how you could be a judge and not a lawyer (somewhere) 1st. That sounds like kangaroo court or like that 1st Star Trek episode with Q.... Scary 😳 I can understand electing judges, that seems fine at least in principle. But it seems crazy that you could elect I don't know, a plumber to be a judge. What's the idea behind that? To me that just sounds like chaos. I don't even think Klingons would do that! Like could I just have trial by combat instead? How many people were you live have been convicted of witchcraft? I mean it just seems like anything would fly.... Hopefully you don't elect your circuit Court judges so at least a legal professional will hear your appeal.
This is another one of those cases where the judge/count and the prosecution conspired to get a conviction. It is likely that both judge and prosecutor continue in their jobs no worse for it. You would think that conspiring to deprive a person of their rights and liberty would be punishable.
It is, it is called violating a persons civil rights under color of law. It carries up to the death penalty. But it isn't enforced because the entire system is corrupt.
Nah, this man is guilty as hell and his story makes zero sense. He was invited in by the wife to feed the cats that neither she nor the husband could do. Then he couldn't get a door open, as you know those are rather difficult to use. So he goes into the wife's special room that is her escape plan. Can't get a window open. Hides in a closet with a gun. The husband, just happens to be wondering the house with a hunting knife for reasons. So when he finds the man, he grabs a loaded gun that isn't his, and shoots the husband in the struggle. All while breaking and entering. Honestly I can see why the judge refused to allow such absurdity in the courts.
@@Kevin7557 Agreed. I can't comprehend the level of simping going on in this page for an obviously deceptive bastard. It's making me reevaluate my opinion of the entire channel, if he's championing causes like this.
This is what happened to me in my 2nd degree battery case. The judge blocked the self defense argument allowing us to "only say that I hit him", and that was the only defense we were allowed. So we had to go for insanity which failed. So I was found guilty, but in the sentencing phase I got to tell the story as it actually happen, the jury sentenced me to 0 years, 0 dollars, 0 restitution once they realized the court had played games with them. The judge overturned that and gave me 3 years probation. 2.5 years later they "invent" a charge against me and revoke my probation and I'm found not guilty of the charge they brought originally against me. But I still have to do 7 months on a 3 year sentence for it despite doing nothing a jury felt was illegal.
so you were basically told "you're not allowed to defend yourself while the prosecution can railroad you and cover you in as much sludge as they want".
My first battery charge had zero evidence against me and I was still found guilty, court systems are only out to make money one way or another and there is nothing that can be done besides bringing back tar and feathers.
Did you appeal the sentence? Sounds like the judge was biased and didn't like having his ruling overturned by the jury. Judges and cops egos are out of control!
Something similar happened to me when I was not allowed to use the defense that CPS had recently given us custody of 2 grand children that I was accused of trying to abscond with no keys in the ignition while my wife and I were waiting to get some clothes and supplies for the children …Jan 2001 no cameras and I was convicted of obstruction for asking questions and resisting was added because I wouldn’t take the plea deal. My wife sounded evasive on the witness stand when asked why we had the kids in our car because she couldn’t tell them that we had just been given custody.
My local court is a clown show. The judge frequently denies people the right to a court-appointed attorney, and then they will not allow defendants to bring in evidence that exonerates them. They do not allow recording devices of any kind in and they do not appear to have a stenographer. The judge and lawyers get confused about what case they are on sometimes, and the prosecutors will come to court without all of their files. The judge will actually start to argue the prosecution's case for him & doesn't pay attention to the actual laws. Judges get paid extra for convictions and the local judge has a 100% conviction rate. The court appointed attorneys only try to do plea deals (if they actually show up-- there have been times where the attorneys didn't even show up for trial). WTF? Why even have a trial if the defendant isn't allowed to offer any evidence or explanation in his own defense? Kind of makes it all pointless if he can't defend himself. I can and do blame the prosecution for pulling that bs, but the judge should not be allowed to serve as a judge anymore for allowing that injustice.
What if the prison was private and the judge has a few buddies made a back room deal sending prisoners to private prisons knowing more u send the more money to be made.
THat is SOOOO UNCONSTITUTIONAL that it boils the blood. There is no federal judge in the world who would allow such a system to operate, where the JUDGE IS PAID FOR CONVICTING people before him. You could file a one-page pro se complaint in any federal court in your state and that would be declared unconstitutional almost IMMEDIATELY. DO IT. You can google all the information you need; you don't have to be a lawyer. It doesn't have to be PRETTY. IT doesn't even have to be TYPED or PRINTED. Hand print your complaint and file it in federal court. Or shut up about it.
Escape window happens to be stuck closed and is in the room where the guns are kept and a pistol just happens to be sitting on the top of the safe. I'd have more questions for the wife.
@@scottgilbert9074 i was wondering about that too. Im curious that if part of the reason why he wasnt allowed to use that specific defense, may have something to do with keeping the wife from testifying, and with that also keeping the husband from having to reveal some detail.
If the judge and prosecutor have history , their cases shouldn't be allowed n that judges court, especially if that prosecutors sustain favorable outcomes from that particular judge.
This reminds me of the time our local community essentially had to sell chunks of our land to widen the main road. The Farmer with the most to lose rallied everybody together and the city agreed to have a hearing about it. It started out with the engineering department of the city explaining what their plans are, and the council got to ask many questions. Next was the main farmer who organized everything, and after explaining his case, the city told him they were not allowed to ask questions. They were simply there to hear his complaint even though they were allowed to ask questions to the engineering department one minute earlier.
@@rhoonah5849 treason... Judges violating their oath and the rights of the citizens on purpose typically at the behest of financial gain to undermine and destroy the citizenry is 100% treason
My old professor used to always deny offer of proof during mock trial. It was his thing if it was criminal court. It drove me nuts till I realized why he did it. He wanted us to write an appeal and I wrote many in school. After hearing this I’m glad he did that. I realize the lesson he was trying to teach.
Yet it is also the reason the court system is clogged up. Speedy Trial has taken a backseat to a fictional “version” of due process. Yes, both are very important. However, I’m sure you know these tactics could easily be verbally presented to a judge at initial hearing and sustained/overruled within a few minutes, not weeks/months of frivolous paperwork/filings.
@@wallywrench9844 well i don't really agree with the plumber argument. first of all, you're not usually going to find a service worker just hiding next to your guns.
"Your Honor, we have video evidence that clearly shows that the perp in this case was not the defendant and in fact was the backyard neighbor of the state's attorney." The judge: "That prejudicial and I won't allow it." Actual case in Kentucky and stood for nearly a decade.
Again, nothing evil about that request. That's a good request. That's a brilliant request. If your opponent can't argue then you win. Nothing evil about it. It's the judge's job to laugh it off and say no chance. Lawyers do lots of crazy things on both sides. That's why there's a judge
@@archmage7813Prosecutors are supposed to strike hard blows, not foul ones. They are held to a higher ethical standard than other attorneys because of their job. Where other attorneys are ethically bound to act in their clients' interests, prosecutors are bound to be honorable and try to get the truth before a jury.
100% you can blame the prosecution. If a cashier at a store tries to sneak in a bunch of extra charges and you catch them you don't just go "Haha can't blame you for trying!" Screw that cashier. A prosecutor has a job to do but that job isn't find guilt at any cost, even if you have to take their rights away at trial.
I disagree, a lawyers job is to try and make the best case for their stance under the guise of the justice system working as intended. If we used the logic you used then defense attorneys would be in the wrong for ensuring the rights of alleged criminals are protected.
I have to be honest with you, as a juror if I saw someone neglect to make the obvious defense and get shown out of the room for a few minutes the moment his attorney gets even close to it, that man would be walking free if I have to hang the jury for a week.
Prosecutors routinely move to block testimony and/or evidence that would otherwise hurt their case. There are many instances where a jury didn't hear about some important context in a case, found out AFTER they delivered a verdict, and then went before the media to say they'd would have delivered the OPPOSITE verdict had they known. Context is important. It sheds light upon ones reasoning and actions.
the problem with that strategy is that it gives convicts grounds to appeal. For a "good prosecutor" closing the case would be relevant - let the defendant argue what ever. Let it be on the record - at least then it is not a ground to appeal the case.
Certain "context" is irrelevant to the crime, that's why as a default prior acts are typically excluded, that's why defendants are not permitted to argue jury nullification, some things are just not relevant to the case. There is a problem with over zealous prosecution, but we can't remedy that by allowing everything in. What we need is more neutral judges. In this case they seemed to overly favor the prosecution.
@@sarowie Acquitted on appeal gets hand-waved away as getting off on a technicality in the eyes of the sorts of people who vote for tough-on-crime politicians. Most prosecutors have dreams of elected office sooner or later.
Sad news. Upon looking for information regarding the new trial granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (their version of the Supreme Court), I discovered that the appellant, Mr. William Rogers, passed away on 3/12/22, prior to the Court's reversal granting a new trial being announced. He absolutely, without question, had permission to be there. The (lower) appellate Court had decided that, since Rogers "put himself in the position" where he could potentially encounter his affair partner's husband, he could, under no circumstances, claim self-defense. By choosing to enter the home of a man who, if he were to suddenly come home while Rogers was there, could respond in a threatening manner, Rogers had essentially waived his right to defend himself against any threats made by the husband/homeowner. This is, of course, nonsensical. It's a shame that Mr. Rogers didn't get to have his new trial & be vindicated.
Its a shame the appeals court even needs to be there to deal with this. Its a waste of court time. The law that allows the prosecution to ask to prevent a defendant from making a defense due to it affecting the likelyhood of a conviction.
Yeah but he's the same guy who's sleeping with his wife. He was hiding in a closet. A plumber would not be hiding. An electrician or cable guy would clearly be doing work, which is reasonable. He was hiding in a closet. We all agree, he should have been allowed to raise his defense.
Something (kind of) similar happened to me (UK) I got into a disagreement with a guy outside a bar where he was joined by two friends who surrounded me and my girlfriend. I decided to walk away, but the first guy followed me and squared up to me. After a few words were exchanged, he went to throw a punch at me, but I managed to strike him first which knocked him to the ground. He started to get back up, so being conscious that his two friends were now behind me, I hit him again (before he'd got back to his feet) and I turned to face the other two. His friends didn't get involved, and police arrived very quickly (unbeknownst to me, they were only about 50 yards away when this all happened). Anyway, it went to court as I was charged with aggravated assault. The prosecution tried to have my defence (of self defence) removed on the basis that I'd hit him while he was still technically on the ground (albeit getting to his feet). Due to this, my appointed duty solicitor removed themselves, so I also had to represent myself (I didn't want to wait again for another court date, which was an option due to this, as my employer at the time had to put me on leave while the case was in progress). All of what happened was caught on CCTV. The prosecution only wanted to admit a certain portion of the CCTV (from when the first guy squared up to me AFTER the first interaction with him and his friends, up until I'd hit him while he was still technically on the ground). Luckily, the judge (magistrate) wasn't convinced by the prosecution, and allowed me to claim self defence; ergo, allowing the whole CCTV footage. My argument of self defence was "righteous" (magistrate's words) as the guy clearly lunged at me first (it was deemed fair for me to use a "preemptive strike') however, the issue was me hitting him while he was still technically on the ground. The CCTV helped me here too as it showed my reasoning (another two possible attackers) and also showed the first guy (once it was over and I was held by police) was going crazy, threatening me and trying to get at me. This, I believe proved my point that he would have still been a threat to me had I not struck him for a second time (eliminate the threat, so to speak). The prosecution tried pushing (correctly, I guess) that I could not have known this at the time, but the magistrate felt that it did show some justification. The fact that I was with my girlfriend while this happened also weighed in my favour (apparently it shows a duty for me to be protective, and also shines a bad light on my attackers). Still, it didn't end as I wanted though, although it did go much better than it could have. I was found guilty of common assault (lesser than aggravated) based solely on the guy still technically (and in the eyes of the law - having at least one knee down) being on the ground when I struck him the second time. The first strike was not even considered by the court. The magistrate gave me the lightest possible sentence though. A three month conditional discharge, no costs/fines, and no "victim" surcharge (so he couldn't claim compensation). Apologies, I didn't realise that my story was so long, lol. Thanks for reading if you got to the end, and stay safe. *EDIT:* In case anyone was wondering, I did keep my job even though I'd technically received a "conviction". Upon request, the court/magistrate was kind enough to write a letter explaining the extenuating circumstances of my guilty verdict. So all's well that ends well, I guess.
Sorry to hear you went through such bullshit, I'm glad it worked out not too terribly; but still. This is one reason why the few times in my life I've been facing a potentially violent encounter I try as hard as possible to evade, but I know that's not always possible. I've been fortunate that _most_ of the time it's possible to deescalate directly, or my commitment to deescalation got me support from bystanders, but it's still scary when it happens. P.S. F**k those prosecutors who tried to railroad you like that.
I AM GLAD THINGS 'WORKED OUT FOR YOU', SORT OF..THE POLICE..ALWAYS ELIMINATE THE THREAT...ONCE STARTED, YOU SHOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED LEGAL RIGHT ...TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT AND ..MAKE YOURSELF SAFE...THIS CRAP THAT YOU WERE USING EXCESS FORCE SINCE THE GUY WAS ..ON THE GROUND IS CRAP...I LIKE HOW YOU PUT IT..PREEMPTIVE STRIKE..OF COURSE..SELF DEFENSE..MAN SORRY YOU WENT THROUGH THIS TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE..THANKS FOR THE STORY...
My criminal law professor required us to memorize a bunch of common law crimes. Almost 30 years later, I still remember them. The common law definition of burglary was the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. So at common law burglaries had to happen at night at someone's home. You couldn't be convicted of burglary for breaking into an office during the day. There was a very funny case in our casebook about burglary. As I recall, in England in the 1970s, there was a young man out and about that decided he wanted to find a woman for sex. He preferred to find one who was willing, but would force a girl if he couldn't find a willing one. To be clear that isn't the funny part. As he was walking past a home, he noticed a pretty girl in an upstairs window. He stripped off all his clothes, except his socks "in case he had to make a quick getaway" and climbed the terrace. As he reached the girl's window, the girl realized 3 things. First, there was a man outside her window, second, that man was naked, and third that man had an erection. It was dark and she thought he was her boyfriend so she invited him in and had sex with him. Afterwards she realized it wasn't her boyfriend so she screamed and the guy was arrested. Was he guilty of rape? No, because the sex had been consensual even if that was because she thought he was someone else. But did he commit burglary? That question hinged on whether he broke and entered the plane of the window before he was invited in because burglary requires that you break and enter with the INTENT to commit a felony. It doesn't matter if you actually go on to commit a felony, just that you intended to. As I recall the court decided that his erection had broken the plane of the window and the guy had therefore been guilty of burglary. Less amusing was a case from NYC in the 1990s. There was a Columbia University grad student named Oliver Jovanovic, that was into BDSM. He met a girl on the Internet, they exchanged emails, and met in person. He tied her up, engaged in BDSM play and had sex with her over a weekend. Afterwards she claimed it hadn't been a consensual. At trial, the judge excluded all of the e-mails between Jovanovic and the woman citing the NY rape shield law. While I think defendants shouldn't normally be able to use a victim's sexual history as a defense, this was different. To say an email in which the girl asked Jovanovic to do the very things he was accused of doing to her should be excluded is ridiculous. His whole defense was it was consensual! That doesn't mean he might not be guilty. Even if she asked him to do it prior to their meeting, she still had a right to change her mind. If she told him to stop, he had to stop. But he absolutely should have been able to enter her emails into evidence. An appeals court did reverse his conviction and order a new trial. But he spent 20 months in prison where he was assaulted by an inmate first. The DA wanted to retry him, but the alleged victim refused to testify, arguably because she knew she would be cross examined with the contents of the emails. Did I mention the girl's grandmother told the media her granddaughter was a notorious liar? The case made me mad. I can only imagine how Jovanovic felt.
Well... I think the rape case in England you mentioned a jury could not possibly have found that credible... How could you let a person in, have sex with them, and somehow NOT know its not your b.f.? I mean. They didnt speak... I dont care how dark it is, if you can see he has an erection, surely shed have seen his face at some point during the act... It just strains credibility.... As for the Jovanovic case... I was once dating a woman who asked me to act out a "rape fantasy" she had where she would leave her door unlocked and id "sneak in" in the middle of the night...needless to say, good judgement set off all sorts of alarm bells in my head and that relationship was quickly ended... Sometimes a guy has to be sure hes thinking with the right head
The defense ought to have the right to make ANY claim and let the court and jury decide it's efficacy. I fail to understand how or why a defendant would be restricted from making any argument. If he says he is innocent because his lawn flamingoes did it, he should be able to argue that.
Debating flamingo issues in front of the jury could unduly burden the jury etc. Thus a sanity check, but here it was used insanely, perhaps the judge has a dim view on extramarital affairs
@High Lord Baron Or at least the defendant should have the right to argue with the judge if he is allowed to argue with the judge if he as the defendant as the right to argue in front of the jury. But why so many hoopes? Rather cut into the specifics of the defense. But why that? The "victim" can also use the arguments of the defendant to paint a picture of the situation. The argument "I came home, found an unknown men, he shoot me and now he is mocking me - the victim - by claiming selfe defense in my house where he was without my permission?" could be strong picture to the jury. Yes, defendant had permission from the girl friend, but the statement of fact that he had no permission from the victim will not be disputed - it only sound "bad" when put into context.
The idea that you could be barred from using any defense is insane and goes against the very core concept of justice. I've heard of this happening several times in the last few years and I can't for the life of me figure out how it could possibly be legal. We are guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution. Preventing people from presenting their defense is definitionally unfair. I can't express enough how much this pisses me off.
How are they wrong? The law in Texas clearly doesn't recognize the perps right to self defense since he attacked the lawful homeowner in his own home. Should some random thug be able to argue self defense if they just shoot someone on the street for their wallet? You are not allowed to raise a defense that has no legal merit. Many would be robbers have attempted to raise this asinine defense after killing victims who fought back only to have the courts immediately squash such nonsense. Perhaps the next mass shooters should then also be able to raise the claim of self defense as well. That would be interesting.
@@GunnyO326 Your argument makes sense. This was not a mass shooter, yes he was in someone's home and the homeowner was surprised to find him. The whole point of this story is he was not allowed to defend himself in court. He was there with the other home owners permission. He had a key and the pass code to the house's security system. He has evidence to show he was told to be there. Yet he was charged with burglary. How did you miss this whole point?
There is a need to avoid unduly prejudicial information from leaning a jury, but largely almost anything related to the case should be allowed IMO. I don’t think there should be *no* limits, but the example in this video isn’t even close to reasonable.
That's literally just what a judge's job is. It's a necessary part of the legal system. Without it either side could just make stuff up and say it without any repercussions.
@@derrick9653 it's not hard to imply things without explicitly lying. Implications are enough to bias a jury. That's why there are rules as to what you can argue and how you can make arguments.
@@haph2087 perhaps things can get out of control, but to deny a person defending themselves the right to tell their own story isn't a trial...it's a farcical faux show of justice. We act like juries are stupid and that they can't sort out all of the information and assign its relevance or that direct lies cannot be punished...but that simply isn't the case.
Many judges in Texas feel their DUTY is to help the prosecution convict criminal defendants. Since most were prosecutors before being elected judges, they don't see that their role in the system has changed, and that they are there to "protect the community".
That's why the state legislature enacted a law that stopped allowing the governor to give pardon/clemency orders for inmates. They were afraid a liberal governor would stop too many death row executions. So, the law requires a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles to first approve requests for pardons/clemency/etc and those approved are sent to the governor to approve.
@@popo_53 All States have some type of judicial review board where you can submit allegations for Judicial misconduct and they can be subjected to punishment including removal from the bench. Qualified immunity protects them from civil and criminal suits. Smarten up before you run off at the mouth housewife
Steve, I have tried about 20 cases or so from DUI to murder. I can't understand for the life of me how the trial judge, whom I would imagine has tried many more cases than I, thought this was acceptable? Very sad to see this happening.
Maybe they didn't believe it was acceptable, but didn't care? The reason why we have police and courts is because people in general do not follow laws without consequences, right? So it stands to reason that if the people involved are immune to prosecution themselves the only thing that would stop them from doing such a thing would be their own good nature. Some people have it and can be trusted to do what is right even without the threat of consequences, but others don't and that's what erodes at liberties.
Wasn't this in Texas? I didn't look it up but I do know that they elect their judges. A former colleague of mine ran for "office" with no legal experience at all.
@@ragtop63 I actually don't think that is really a bad thing in politics. Building an entrenched political class defeats the point of tossing out a monarchy/aristocracy. One failure of our political system in the US is that we have failed to institute term limits, have allowed special privileges for legislative and executive electees and appointees, and have failed to clamp down on multigenerational corruption in politics.
Right the judge is suppose to make sure the law process( according to the written law n the books) is followed not to put his personal opinions n to play, that's why judges need to be evaluated by a party not affiliated by within their jurisdiction, but outside.
In places where judges are elected, the fact that "I will be tough on crime" is apparently something people vote for rather than against is a significant part of it.
I've seen this kind of thing more than once and I honestly don't think courts should have ANY ability to limit what someone can say in their own defense at all. People should be free to make whatever kind of defense they want and the jury should be there to consider it's validity. In modern jury systems the jury is largely there as a useless facade to be manipulated and make everyone think that trials are fair. Their decision-making abilities have been eroded to the point where the primary points of having a jury of your peers in the first place has been lost.
I'm personally against the idea of a trial by jury of peers. A trial by jury is important to drown out any individual person's bias (although it does little for cultural and systemic biases), but it's the "of peers" part that gets me. The average American is slow, poorly educated, and lacks empathy. And the jury selection process scrubs out anyone with opinions and knowledge that might impact the case; I get that its purpose is to keep premature verdicts out of the courtroom, but all it really does is select for uninformed potatoes who can't critically process what is given to them. The jury bench is thus stuffed full of the dumbest members of the community. Seriously, if you're on trial for some kind of felony you know you didn't commit, do you want your fate decided by people who read at a 4th or 5th grade level, whose understanding of civics comes from a steady diet of Tucker Carlson and Miller Lite? Fuck no. Triply so if you're black or gay. Would it really be such an evil thing to have professional jurors? I'd be more comfortable with having a jury filled with people who have a profit motive to be fair and just (and on the flip side, being on a jury that caused a mistrial would be a black stain on their career), who have to study the law along with advanced critical thinking skills that would qualify them for a position as an adjunct professor. The jury selection process would be a matter of looking through each juror's record and kicking out the ones that demonstrate any clear biases that would hinder your case. It'd be much more efficient and fair.
@Luke Fabis I understand what you are saying. I believe the "of your peers" has been misunderstood over time. When it was adopted, most all communities from which a jury would be gathered were small enough that everyone knew of everyone else. They may not have had a personal relationship with them, but, at the very least, they knew of their character through their reputation. I believe it originally meant the people who knew you, knew your character, and therefore, if you were prone to lying versus were honest or prone to fits of rage versus being controlled under all circumstances or any other type of behaviour to better judge if you were guilty or innocent. Now, if you know the defendant, you are disqualified to serve on the jury, the exact opposite of the original intent.
That just happened to me. I was getting foreclosed on a piece of land that didn't even have a mortgage. They are more concerned about their procedure and the steps to responding to a statement of claim instead of the simple " hey look, this isn't even the right mortgage loan numbers or correct parcel of land". It's like the twilight zone.
How long did this man spend in custody, jail, and prison as this played out? Upon him being found innocent, or even that the prosecutors and judge deprived them of a fair trial/defense, the judge and prosecutors should face a review by citizens and possible prosecution.
One jury I served on, during deliberations, one guy kept saying "He's guilty because he did not take the stand and say he didnt do it!" I pointed out (several times) that one of the foundations of our legal system is the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the defendant does NOT have to testify. He said "Sure I know all that. But if he was innocent he would have taken the stand and said so, so he must be guilty." I said there could be many reasons why he did not, most lawyers dont want their clients to testify, maybe he stutters or doesnt speak well, maybe the fact the he was black and all of us were white was bothering him. I said obviously I couldnt stop him from thinking this way, but if he kept saying it I would make sure the judge knew about it and there would probably be a mistrial.
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) about how many people like that are on juries. People who don't understand the law or the principles of our justice system. People who do not judge based on facts and evidence but instead on emotion and personal bias. Depending on where you live, it might be better do a bench trial, especially if you have a judge who cares about upholding the law. It's a shame the population has been so dumbed down we can't have fair trials anymore, but it is what it is.
The second time he said that absurd statement you should have passed a note to the judge. Fools like that are why there are alternate jurors. What happened?
@@chrisbudesa But I would point out that the alternates are released before the jury begins deliberations (at least here); it would have been a mistrial.
He had permission to be in the house (from the wife) ... that’s not breaking and entering or burglary... he was an invited guest and was threatened. That’s pure self defense.
@@AbNomal621 Assuming the woman setup this scenario in the hope of solving all her problems, then one could argue that we have one criminal master mind and two victims.
@@kunzilla and even if it wasn't real, the jury should still hear it. Guilt must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and refusing evidence into trial means that they aren't hearing the full story to do so. Edit: I was informed that the phrase was beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, I am human and make mistakes, but my point still stands.
@@rmhartman You really should read the definition of burglary . "entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft". If he didn't enter the building illegally (he didn't) there is no burglary.
@@rmhartman He was attacked with a lethal weapon, that gives him the right to defend himself including picking up objects owned by the attacker. He does not have the right to take the gun with him home, but he can use it to defend himself.
@@rmhartman Texas Penal Code Sec. 30.02 Burglary (a)A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person: (1)enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or (2)remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or (3)enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault. It can't ever be considered burglarly if he had a right to be there by permission. At most they can get is assault assuming self defense is defeated.
This is crazy, I would like to see the CHEATING Wife's text messages and see if she set these 2 guys up to get into a fight. This is CLEARLY self defense but if the wife had sent both her husband and the man she was having an affair with into the home to cause the fight, isn't she the one committing the crime here?
Many judgeships are filled as a direct result of affirmative action objectives,in which lesser competent persons become judges because of their protected class status, rather than their legal, experience, knowledge and proficiency...😢
- Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? - No - What do you mean "No"? - You prohibited me not to under motion in limine
yeah, that is why you do not let the defendant speak at all. And going trough the show of arguing in front of the jury, the jury being send out, then the jury returning and being told to forget.... does not look good for a defendant.
I suppose the only tactic is to set up for the appeal by entering to the record every time the defense withheld evidence based on the direction of the judge. Then the transcript looks ridiculous on review/appeal. It would also be ridiculous to have the jury in and out constantly to enter it. Having said that this particular guy clearly made a series of unwise decisions that lead to his crime. At any point he could have changed his path.. or avoided adultury in the first place 🤣
Another serious problem, is when your attorney refuses to use a defense that is perfectly valid, because he’s afraid of the judge or the law-enforcement community. I know of such cases. Another thing to consider, is the incredible amount of money, time and aggravation that this defendant went through, because a judge would not allow an OBVIOUS and reasonable defense.
Recently I walked a guy charged with burglary. He got home and found his wife with another man. There was pushing and shoving by both men. Then the husband left. Cops arrived, took a report and issued warrant for the husband for burglary. I just went through the whole process and about a week before trial I gave the prosecution a copy of the lease that stated my client was the rentor and had every right to be on the property. Dismissed two days before trial.
It sounds like the original trial judge has experience with catching his/her spouse cheating, and saw this as an opportunity at getting some vicarious "justice" for themselves.
"Your Honor, it's come to our attention that justice may prevail if the defendant is allowed to proceed with his defense arguments. We must not let that happen......"
This happens with the truth in court every day. A person should be able to defend himself with any crazy excuse they want. And leave it to the jurors to decide what’s true.
I know someone who went to trial and could prove he was at work an hour drive away from the crime scene at the time the crime happened. His timecard was ruled inadmissable for defense because his worksite had no cameras to prove he was physically present at his job and didn't prove no one clocked him in and out on his behalf. He spent 3 years in state prison. Testimony form coworkers was also ruled inadmissable.
I would guarantee that if he was being prosecuted for something that happened at the worksite then his timecard would definitely be used as evidence by the prosecution.
That's nuts. If that was the prosecutors reasoning, then he needs to prove the defendant was not at work. Not allowing that defense is denying the defendant due process. But what do I know, common sense often seems to be missing in a court of law these days.
IF he has texts, that's pretty damning against the prosecution. Not allowing those texts into evidence is a travesty of justice Regardless, it's shady af and speaks to possibly a larger conspiracy that they just outright denied this line of defense
That is true, but hey, at least we are not living in a country where the prosecution wins 99% of cases. Btw, this country I'm talking about isn't some third world dictatorship, it's Japan.
@Mind of a dark horse ---aren't You also forgetting Incompetent Judges AND police Officers there are also most of these citizen jurists, judges, attorneys (No disrespect, Mr. Lehto YOU. Sir are a Rarity of a Unicorn of the court system, An Honest and Principled Gentleman of Character and Integrity) I was simply saying that There are ACTUAL REAL jurists, Judges and attorneys and Police who are voluntarily (secretly) CORRUPT, and only saying and behaving in ways that Shields their own actions towards protecting their own rears!!
@@mind_of_a_darkhorse yes, but Iran is a war torn theocracy. I used Japan as an example because it's a 1st world country, economically stable, and a legitimate democracy, yet even then you could have a justice system, that's worst than ours.
Your honor I would like to argue that I am not guilty based on the facts of reality. Judge and prosecutor: oh we don't want him to talk about reality or what actually happened so yeah let's not let him do that. Justice!
Personally, I'd be asking for a Summery Judgement of Dismissal based on the length of time since the Alleged Offense and the MANY Violations of Procedure and Court Rules committed by the Courts... I'd also be making Formal Complaints against the Idiots on the Bench for their Insane Rulings...
Given it's Texas, I'd tell the judge I was placing him under citizen's arrest on the federal felony charge of conspiracy against rights under color of law. State judges are not immune to arrest for federal felonies, and Texas citizen's arrests have the same legal standing as one by a police officer. The US Supreme Court has ruled that unless there is a superseding statute forbidding it, citizen's arrests are lawful (US v. Di Re (1948)). Ordering a criminal defendant to not present the ONLY possible defense against the charges against him would allow any chance of success whatsoever is unequivocally a violation of the fifth amendment right to due process.
Exchanged hundreds of emails with the wife ... definitely a plumber (but not for the plumbing or the cats either). He then proceeds to attack husband in the husband's home when confronted (rather than retreating). And then claims self defense afterwards. I am not shedding any tears for this jerk and I hope he get a severe sentence in his new trial.
When it is a situation that precludes a self-defense argument. For example, white supremacist Frazier Glenn Miller had his attempts to argue self-defense shot down after he killed a few people shooting up either a synagogue or Jewish cultural center.
Self-defense has some legal requirements, and if you can't explain how you could possibly meet those requirements, it could just confuse the jury. That's why you're supposed to get the chance to show there is at least something that could possibly back your claim.
Sadly, some criminal court judges think of themselves as "crime-fighters" rather than as neutral arbiters of justice. This was likely one of those judges.
I've said for years that if I ever had to testify, it would go like this: Lawyer: "Please answer yes or no." Me: "I refuse to answer that with yes or no. I've sworn to tell the WHOLE truth, and you want me to give a partial truth. Unless I can reply with context, I'm not answering."
and you'd get held in contempt of court, guaranteed. don't mess with a judge's ego, because they're absolutely massive, almost as big as the beer gut on most of these losers
You can't actually do that. You do that it's contempt of court if the judge feels spicy. So... No. You would not. You answer yes or no and then it's your attorneys job on cross examination to give you the opportunity to give the context
@@Setixir "Do you confirm that, according to your knowledge, the defendant stopped his habit of raping children every Sunday? Please answer yes or no." "But he never..." "CONTEMPT OF COURT!"
30+ years ago, I was apprised of the story of our previous church music leader who was in prison on a pedophilia charge against his young granddaughter (don't recall the age, but between 5 and 8, I think). There was absolute evidence that she had been sexually assaulted. However, during this assault (the only one that had ever occurred), she had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. The grandfather did not currently, nor had he EVER, been infected with this disease, which is easily detectable, even after cured. The daughter-in-law's boyfriend DID have that disease (there had been a VERY ugly divorce from the man's son). The ONLY testimony allowed against the grandfather was the carefully scripted tearful testimony against him. The judge decreed that the medical evidence was inadmissible and not relevant to the case. It had been fought and fought for YEARS, but never any resolution, despite that he was SO obviously innocent.
Interestingly, the idea of making certain evidence inadmissible in court was pushed by women, in matters related to sexual crimes. So hard to feel sorry for the alleged victim in the case.
@johnlove2954 the alleged victim was apparently 5-8 years old so I don't know why you "don't feel sorry" for a child when a bunch of narcissists ruined her life
@@stevengoldsworthy2079 Her age does not matter. If an innocent person is screwed, he is screwed. In fact, if the judge made evidence admissible in this case, just because the victim was a small girl, he would do injustice to countless men, young and old, who were not allowed this relief, irrespective of their innocence or criminality. That judge proved that he cares more about law and justice than age and gender of the victim, and that is a huge relief
@@johnlove2954so, you're saying that allowing evidence (that would have let an innocent man walk free) to be admissible would ruin the lives of countless young men? You're literally saying "yeah, the judge was right. The child rapist should walk free, and the innocent grandfather should be in prison." Wtf are you talking about?
I don't doubt this happened in texas considering I've lived here my whole life. I have my own crazy story that happened in court. I used to pay child support until he grew up, but in the middle of it I had changed jobs. During that time I had given her in person payments in cash until the state resumed garnishment from my paycheck from new job. We had a readjustment hearing afterwards and in court the judge asked her if I had given money to her while that happened and she said YES. Then he stopped and told her "hey you do know if you say no, he will own you that money again. Do you want to change your statement?". I couldn't believe it! Lucky she was honest and kept her Yes answer...
"don't argue with a cop on the side of the road. save it for court"
(gets to court) judge - "don't argue with me."
If for no other reason but for this it will behoove us to unite, fight back and vote for Trump so he can make good on h8s promise to clean the swamp. We need more fair federal judges and Condervative Justices who uphold tje Constiturion.
@@soniag4516come on guy. He didn’t clean the swamp the last time he was in. He did literally none of the things he promised. He is the same as Biden and the rest of the politicians
@@soniag4516 Trump has had four years in office. During two of those years, his party held majorities in both the House and Senate. If Trump didn't clean the swamp with the presidency and no one to hold him up in congress and two years to work, why do you still believe he wanted to?
@@diablomineroI think these people genuinely realize these problems will likely get worse under such authority, but are counting on it to only affect people of demographics they wish to see persecuted. There is a major "he's not hurting the right people" subtext in most of their arguments. Notice how they never look up the political affiliation of the judges either and just assume, usually incorrectly.
You have no right to a defense
There needs to be some sort of actual real life consequences for judges who blatantly ignore the law and constitution so grievously.
Egregiously
Religiously...
I keep saying we should hang them; however, everyone starts screaming Klan at me. Which I find confusing since last time I checked I was not a registered member of the Ku Klux Democratic Klan.
One went to jail recently and was disbarred.
@@RealPackCat That's refreshing lets hope for more of that in cases where it's warranted.
"Your honor, it's come to the attention of the Prosecutors that if the Defendant were allowed to use this defense they might win, we'd like them to be unable to do so."
Sounds good to me.
Your statements so true.
Texas judges are elected. They don't even have to have a law degree - just more campaign funds.
"I see the Prosecution's point and agree. I am therefore willing to find the Defendant guilty right now, in order to spare the State time and expense and to preclude the need to empanel a jury."
Judges should not be able to tell a defendant that they can't defend themselves.
My eldest son, when he was 18, moved in with a girl that was 4 yrs older. He went to visit her during her lunchtime at her work unexpectantly. Her secret boyfriend showed up while our son & her were talking. He left when she said she couldn’t leave for lunch. The other guy was told that our son was just some guy bothering her. He called the police & pressed stalking charges that she agreed to. Pasadena CA police raided my house that he didn’t live. The trial would not let our lawyer introduce that they lived together because it was not initially introduced, even with proof of utility bills. She made the rent. He went to prison for 2 yrs & released with 10 yrs probation asa felon. Her friend, that was my high school student, told me she had done the same thing to another guy.
The thing that makes me sick is that the prosecution tries to get a conviction… they don’t try to find the truth.
They seem to charge one step above what they should also.
I totally agree " ... they don’t try to find the truth." Unbelieveable!
Sadly so is that how US system is designed.
I wonder if they were trying to nullify the self defense claim because the defendant was there because of an immoral purpose. I see it to some extent, he was participating in adultery "a crime" claiming self defense. They just went about it all wrong.
Because NO ONE will ever punish a prosecutor for lying. Even defense lawyers won't even support that idea.
40 Years for burglary??? People get half that for murder and rape! WTF
Fortunately, Texas still takes felonies seriously.
The assault was only 20 years. It does make Texas look bad.
@@TheSurrealGoose They didn't take assault seriously as it was merely 20 years. It would have looked better if the two were switched.
@@kerwinbrown4180 Nah, there are degrees of assault; burglary is a yes/no matter.
@@TheSurrealGoose Felony assault would include violence while Burglary does not but there are both migrating and aggravating circumstances to each.
sounds like we have a judge who should no longer be allowed to practice law in general. That judge entirely undermined the whole point of trails in general. the very definition of Kangaroo court. That the judge also ignored the order of the appellant court the first time shows that it was intentional. The judge fully intended to deny a citizen their most basic of rights.
You act like a corrupt judge is an isolated incident.
Report corrupt and stupid judges to the state judicial review board.
@@mikepalmer1971 Where do you get the OP thinks corrupt judges is a rare thing?
This is exactly what happened to Alex Jones and nobody batted an eyelid. It happened in Texas and Connecticut.
Sounds like the kind of judge that will be filling the bench for the foreseeable future with the left having the appointment powers in most places.
Going from 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'guilty until proven innocent' and now to 'guilty, not allowed to proof innocence'. What a great world to live in.
Yeah but this guy had no business being there, and he killed the man who owned the home. WHY did he even carry a gun to feed cats? Sounds like a total bs story.
@@macturner2196 Dude, he said he was invited into the building to feed cats. That’s a reasonable reason to be somewhere, he also said the gun was in the closet already. Don’t just hear, listen.
@@macturner2196 Also the man didn't die. You clearly weren't paying attention.
@@dreamcanvas5321 I stopped caring about the arrested guy, when I heard he was cheating. I don't care if he was asked to feed the cat, or not. Give the scumbag life until 90. So, if he lives that long, he can't destroy more families.
@@macturner2196 he didn't carry a gun there. The owner left his gun on top of the gun safe. He picked it up to defend himself from the owner's knife. ...according to the defendant.
Beyond the absurdity of not allowing a self-defence argument for the charge, the mere fact that the trial court didn't allow for a defendant to argue an alternative interpretation of facts submitted into evidence is probably the grossest miscarriage of justice I've heard about.
Literally a kangaroo court.
There are lots of courts out there. The judges run for reelection based upon how much their court has paid out.
Gross
Beyond absurdity to have your side lover feed your cats in your husbands house!😂😂😂
@@Nick-b7b9s
Right?
To me it sounds like the husband got ahold of her phone, texted him, deleted it, and fully intended to kill him.
WHY WASN'T THIS ALLOWED TO BE ARGUED
@@nsahandler yes that's a strong possibility
It is not absurd at all. He literally admitted he broke into a home and then assaulted that person with a deadly weapon (knife or gun). He claims he only stabbed/shot the person living there in self defense. that is preposterous. How would you feel if someone broke into your home, stabbed you, and then claim he was only stabbing you to defend himself?
Judges seriously need to be held accountable for blatant misconduct in court. Allowing a prosecutor to basically remove the ability for the defendant to make the stance they defended themselves is downright criminal.
Agreed
they can be suspended and fired, which happened recently as a matter of fact.
@@grumblesa10 What about all the time the defendant spent in jail? Judge should be up on kidnapping charges.
Sorry buddy.
It's Texas. Good ol' Boys club run the city from the golf course.
They ARE the judges AND the lawyers in the town.
Now what??
@@grumblesa10 Job consequences aren't enough. Not enough of a deterrent. Judges should be held criminally liable.
We need to end immunity for judges and prosecutors. If they mess up so bad someone ends up in prison, then they need to face criminal charges for something like false imprisonment or kidnapping.
So you want to punish the corrupt or incompetent officials with the system they are corrupting? What could possibly go wrong..
The problem should be fixed by more accurately translating voter desire with outcome. The check on the courts should be people, not the courts.
This is in large part due to a strategy by a few politicians, and one man-turtle, to pick and fund campaigns for politically biased judges.
We don't need to end immunity...we can just preclude them from bringing it up in their defense for their life in prison case.
@@craigslist6988 End qualified immunity NOW!
@@cat637d- Qualified Immunity is right and necessary *_when correctly applied._* That is to say, when the official(s) "should reasonably have understood" what is and isn't among the *protected rights of the citizen.* This is a very broad statement, a general principle, WIDELY applicable at all levels of civil and criminal matters, whether or not the Courts are involved.
They Are Not Invisible people, they just need to learn the law of "Fuck around and find o
And they wonder why confidence in the legal system is cratering.
Its all one way
Prosecutor should be disbarred for even asking for that and judge removed from the bench
Nothing wrong with asking. So no the lawyer should not be disbarred. Judge should be punished but not the lawyer.
They should be, But they won't be.
@@archmage7813Asking for something illegal is absolutely wrong
@@JamesThomas-kx5sj I don't think you understand the law because nothing in that is illegal. Judges can absolutely tell you that you can't use certain lines of reasoning or make certain claims. That is not illegal at all. I'm sorry you don't understand the law but that's the law.
@@archmage7813Those provisions are meant for suppressing irrelevant or false evidence. Not for suppressing legitimate evidence and arguments. This is a miss-use of court procedure and it seems the appeals court agrees that it was a miss-use.
Imagine if, on a murder trial, a judge prevented the prosecutor from mentioning that the victim died. This is a crazy fact to leave out of the case
They jail innocent people without evidence a death happened at all.
There were instances of people getting into jail for murder when there wasn't even any evidence anyone died or even went missing.
This is a prime example of a mistrial. Judge is refusing to allow a fair trial to happen.
Yes, I'm not really sure how else you serve justice if you don't send it for a new trial with a new judge. The only other reasonable alternative would be to set aside the conviction completely, but I do think that a mistrial is probably the correct remedy.
Your honor, prosecution objects. The defense is devastating to our case.
@@billyjoejimbob75 : great point!! 👍👍
it certainly would be in this case!! Geesh, what a travesty‼️😳😬🤯
He got "Just Us".
Honestly, that fact that they tried so hard to supress his ability to claim self-defence makes me think it's true more than anything. Also makes me wonder if the husband knows the prosecutor or the judge personally.
Probably. That was my first thought to explain the shadyness of the judge/prosecution
Or the judge / Prosecutor just have a moral opinion on adultery itself
@@mat100ca Which would be just as bad as if they had made that decision because they knew the husband. The moral opinions of the judge and prosecutor should have as much bearing on a jury trail as the price of tea in India. If the judge suppressed that defense because of his personal opinions then that judge directly rigged that trial by eliminating a defense that could have swayed a jury, violating his Sixth Amendment rights. Because how can you have an impartial jury if the jury is only allowed to hear evidence that supports the prosecution and none that supports the defense? The Court of Appeals agreed that the judge was completely in the wrong for suppressing that defense so either the judge made a stupid mistake or he's essentially guilty of Jury Tampering and he's a criminal, the later being the case if he lets personal feelings dictate what evidence he allows into the trial instead of the clearly defined rules of the law.
You'd think that they would just use the argument of self defense and if not allowed, file for a mistrial. Then appeal.
I actually think this is what it comes down to. The Husband didn't want his wife testifying as that would lead to a public exposure of the infidelity. And the only way to prevent the wife from testifying was to get the the self defense, defense removed. Which then allows for the burglarly charge.
To be fair, I think the prosecutor was probably as shocked as the defense his request was granted. But he/she took the win.
Judge should be sent to prison
It's crazy how prosecutors have a desire to win even at the cost of justice...a great book was written on this subject on why prosecutors and judges fight against releasing people proven innocent from jail called "Blind Injustice". It's written by a former prosecutor who later worked as an attorney for his State's Innocence Project so he has a unique perspective.
It's unfair that the prosecution has essentially unlimited funds, and the defense is limited to what the defendant can afford or a very overked public attorney who has no resources.
For that reason, and what you said, prosecutors should come from the same pool as public defenders.
It's completely expected. Prosecutors are graded based on how many convictions and guilty pleas that they get. No one ever gives them credit for "finding the truth." So it incentivizes them to steamroll defendants at all costs. So the times that prosecutors don't go hard on people, it's not because they believe that someone is innocent, but only because they don't think they can win the case and that would hurt their record.
I was charged with a crime I didn’t commit. Even though I had witnesses and overwhelming evidence to support my innocence, the prosecution REFUSED to drop charges, and I was forced to take the case to trial. So dumb. I was found innocent of course, but I had to spend tons of money and time fighting it.
@@mattportnoyTLV Theyre gonna get you no matter what. Even if you win, you lose.
@@mattportnoyTLV sounds like vexatious prosecution. You should get legal fees granted for that.
This just shows how crooked the court system is in this country.
In every country since the beginning of time. Since the 1st village of humans.
5% of people in jail are innocent. About 200k.
That judge needs to be removed from being a judge and have their law license removed for life and banned nationwide. Their is no way a barely competent judge makes such a bad decision.
Counterpoint: Clearly the system works, because the erroneous decision was reversed on appeal.
@@BallisticTip Willing to bet it's significantly higher.
I had a friend of mine accused of rape . On the original police report, woman said the man who raped her was clean shaving , middle aged with slightly gray hair.
The cops in the area , two separate counties had it in for my friend they picked up my friend.
He was 21 , had a mustache and black hair.
They pressured him into being in a line up , he asked for a lawyer 3 times.
Figuring he had nothing to hide he agreed to be in a line up.
The woman picked him out of the line up.
He was convicted and spent 7 years in prison maintaining his Innocence .
To get out he had to go through classes where he had to admit to what he had done for the consoling.
The assistant DA had to excuse himself from the case because he eventually married the woman .
The detective on the case was demoted for evidence tampering in another case.
While in prison my buddy tried several times to appeal based on the original police report .
Court would not allow it .
Always, always, always get an attorney and remain silent. It's not the job of police to set you free, once you've been arrested. At that point, it's their job to gather evidence to prosecute you. It's up to the court and a trial to set you free.
Not justifying what happened but, first of all, that woman was not raped, if she had they could have done a rape kit test and figured out you friend couldn't have been the rapist due to DNA recovered, your friend was set up by that woman. Secondly your buddy completely fucked himself by falsely admitting he did it just to get out of classes, he pretty much has no case anymore. Also, just agreeing to line up was a mistake as well, it was a waste of his time and he got framed for it.
DOES NOT MATTER
listen clearly, witness testimony is more solid in maintaining a conviction than anything on earth
actual evidence can be reviewed by appeals courts, but not witness testimony
the appeals can only look at the information in the best light for the prosecutor, that means the jury is an INFALLIBLE lie detector, called the triers of the facts, who can administer a lie detector from afar, yet a lie detector with any equipment known to man is banned
Its your friends mistake for not getting a lawyer.
@@jaredgarbo3679 He was 21 , an orphan and was homeless.
He had a public defender .
He appealed on the original police report but they would not grant it.
It wasn't a lack of an attorney it was lack of money to hire an attorney who would actually fight for him.
Steve, you make a living as a lawyer. This is nuts. A person can't defend one's self?
I have defended myself and won. I also help friends and family file the right motions and I am not a lawyer. I just study law for fun
Almost as wonderful as a judge that ordered a defendant to plea guilty or face contempt.
He was defending himself from the homeowner, who had every reason to believe he was a burglar/ home invader. The home owner was not committing a crime so how could the defendant be legally defending himself?
In general you cannot use self defense ad a defense if you are in the wrong. For instance you cannot start a fight, and then claim you were defending yourself.
Texas
@@Aikibiker1 Its because he was lawfully in the house, if his story is true. Since he was there by the wife's request to feed the cats, he did not break the law by entering. Thus, being mistaken for a burglar does not deprive him of his right to defend himself when attacked.
The judges and prosecutors involved in approving these things should be considered a violation of judicial canons etc. Judges just get to violate the rights of the defense without penalty.
Utah
@@judycorbridge6470 They love Justice there. As long as it’s Mormon ethically.
The Court needs to be impartial, so the Judge should never just agree to anything the prosecution demands without due process.
@@BReal-10EC Indeed it is not enough to actually be impartial, the court must also *appear* impartial.
@@BReal-10EC exactly
"Why don't you want the defense to use this defense?"
"Because, your honour, we would lose our case!"
Because the homeowner was defending his home from a home invasion. The invader foregoes any claim to self defence.
@@rmhartman A person invited in is not home invasion.
@@rmhartman Hey stupid what part of he was given permission do you not understand? He had a key and the passcode.
@@rmhartman He wasn't an invader since he had a key, passcode and he was doing a tenant / owner a favor to feed the cats via invitation.
@@rmhartman Last I checked, a home invasion means breaking into a house
"Your honor, we think the defendant is going to plea not guilty, even though they are clearly guilty. Please force them to plead guilty."
"Done!"
"We can not force him to plead guilty - could you please tape his mouth shut while we paint a picture of a burglar for the jury?"
"Your honor, as Defense Counsel, I would like to point out--"
"Shut up!!!"
"Your honor, we think the prosecution is going to show evidence harmful to our client. Please disallow that evidence!" :-P :-D ;^)
The PA & Judge should been heavenly fined and Long prison sentence along with all benefits revokes for fife.
I had a similar issue where I was in court and my solicitor (uk) did not turn up - this was 30 years ago long before mobile phones - I was forced to stand for myself and when I asked for a postponement because of this, the prosectution started going on and on about "this trial is already 2 years overdue, wasted enough time etc etc" - When I replied that the reason for the trial being 2 years overdue was because the PROSECUTION had POSTPONED the court date THREE TIMES while getting it's case together, and I was only asking for one, because my solicitor had not turned up, the prosecution objected again, and THE JUDGE DENIED MY PETITION, so I was forced to represent myself.
Needless to say I lost and was fined £1500 for a minor traffic violation.
It wasnt until years later I found out this was clear grounds for a mistrial and the judge should have given me that postponement.
I've never trusted the UK's legal system since.
I suggest you don't either.
Oh and the nail in the coffin - the person whom had driven me to court told me after the proceedings that he had heard the police officer waiting to give evidence against me say "we're going to nail him to the wall and make an example of him".
Still REALLY angers me to think about it.
Just remember officer friendly is never your friend
I would have been pissed! 😡
I just reread what you posted it took me a minute because solicitor in America means the prosecuting attorney nothing else I mean you may see solicitor at law but in court the solicitor is the prosecutor more often than not you're going to see attorney at law I mean he's going to get those cops to solicit those criminals in the court so he can have a job long time friend of mine said you want to get screwed go to the courthouse you want Justice go to the whorehouse
You should have taken all the names and court transcripts and gone to the press and nail the officer, the prosecutor and the corrupt judge to wall and make examples of them.
your not the only one who was made an example of it seems.
So the court won't let them plead self defence then when convicted, gives the guy hugely excessive sentences? I'm guessing the Judge got cheated on before and is slightly sore about it.
or the judge is a friend (of a friend) of the husband. ;)
Or has contracts to uphold with private jail
@@williambrown319 Watch a little too much Alex Jones do we?
I guess we should allow self defense as a defense for all homicides, even when the law doesn't merit it, right? Let's allow muggers to raise self defense as a defense the next time some schmuck gets shot for fighting back. That'll teach them.
@@GunnyO326 wow, you really missed the point of this whole video...
Similar thing happened to me, Judge flat out refused to see any of my proof for a case and flat out refused to talk with my attorney. Him and the DA were buddy buddy so I got screwed and convicted of crime that never happened. Same judge a few years prior refused to appoint an attorney to a young man who was in jail and the guy ended up taking his own life because of it. Judge was reelected year after year. Corruption is a terrible thing.
That's the downside of living in a small town. Police and courts get away with all sorts of abuses.
Make a bunch of money and put them in federal court. It's the only thing you can do about it when they actually are corrupt. Otherwise they can just railroad you.
You should also stay somewhere other than your address while it happens. Police don't fight fair.
I am assuming it was small enough thing that it wasn't worth putting the time and effort to go through appeals court. That's how those small towns nickel-and-dime you
"Elected judges" -- there's your problem.
@@MB-xe8bbso you would rather have apointed judges? So bad people can getvtheir bad friends apointed as judge? You want to take away power from voters?
That why u have to remove the human factor out of law and prosecution, how is another question indeed.
I motion that the prosecutor not be allowed to use any of the evidence they have against me.
The courts did that to me when I filed for divorce against my wife. My divorce and consequential child support case was in court over 45 times in the course of 10 years. That included many continuances, which I had to take time off from work for. I started working 3rd shift just so that I could go to court at 9am in the morning. But to make it short, I saw paperwork at some point that had my ex-wife's name as the plaintiff and me as the defendant. I brought original court documents to court after I saw that, and I asked the Judge to have CPS undo what they had illegally done, altering and modifying legal documents. The Judge took one look at my original documentation and scorned the CPS to have that changed immediately.
And that's all?! Gah, I hate the CPS. I was taken by them at the age of 2, and I still remember clearly what it cost me. They're corrupt, and disgusting.
They be sneaky like that.
F
ZzzzzzzrzzzzzzrrzzzzdzrzRzfzdzzrzdzzdzrzrz
Zzzd
And people still think the average citizen has rights. Your rights end when an authority figure decides to end them.
There is a conflict of right in this case which is why it is a criminal case. This is a complicated case because of the involvement of adultery and that both burglary and assault were involved.
The tyranny of the state.
@@RhizometricReality This is not an example of that as the appeals court is also a state actor.
The prosecutor and lower judge are incompetent or malicious and should possibly be removed from their respective office. That would depend on their history as it is human to err.
@@kerwinbrown4180 no, this was a boyfriend and a husband assault case.
The fact that they want to put this man away for 60 years is ridiculous given they won't even let him defend himself.
@@RhizometricReality I agree with the Appeals Court. The trial judge made an incompetent decision.
Sounds like what happens in Family Law on a regular basis. Even more horrifying to see it happening in Criminal Law.
This is a criminal case.
Why more horrifying? You may go to jail for a crime, when innocent but in family court you can go to jail, or have everything taken away, for many years. You may be subject to a never ending vindictiveness.
And, in a family law case, the real victims are the children! At least in criminal law you have a court of appeals. And in family law, there isn't any Court of appeals! The judges in my case in particular, side stepped the standard practice, violated my rights and don't give a fuck the impact on my kids! And then the judges have absolute immunity!? My kid can't even sue the judge in civil court down the road!
@@leondillon8723 Try reading past the first sentence before commenting.
@@leondillon8723 both are rife with corruption, so what difference is there, really?
It sounds like the judge needs to be removed from all cases and sent back to school.
Even the judges don’t understand the laws and how the courts are supposed to work anymore. We are living in an idiocracy of our own making.
They’re very deliberately doing this to tear our country apart from the inside, the idocracy of the trial court is not accidental
Well, Americans do elect their own judges a lot of the time. So it's really your own fault.
@@barongerhardt I live in Rhode Island and we don't vote for our judges they're put there by the bar association. So basically lawyers elect the judges and if they're bad the bar association can and do just remove them.
@@barongerhardt it's the bar association. So attorneys elect other attorneys (or themselves, I suppose) to the positions. From the RI Bar Association web site: The Rhode Island Bar Association is a unified bar to which all attorneys licensed to practice in the state, belong. As of January 2019 we have 5,237 active members and 1131 inactive and out-of-state members bringing our total to 6,368. There are currently 154 Associate and/or In House Counsel Memberships. The total of all membership categories is 6,522. An elected House of Delegates meets quarterly and an Executive Committee, which meets monthly to govern the Association. The Association holds an Annual Meeting in June. The "Bar year" runs from July 1 through June 30. In fulfilling its stated purposes, the Bar's programs and activities are designed to serve the needs and interests of the membership, the public and the administration of justice. So I'm not sure if that means they could only remove the judge during their monthly meeting or if they would hold a.... Tribunal? To revoke a bar license. But you could lose your law license even as a judge and that would disqualify you from being a judge. In other words here being a judge means you have to be a lawyer first. Not just any lawyer, a lawyer that has the respect of his or her fellow lawyers. This judge would be in hot water if they did that here. I don't even know if they could go back to being a regular lawyer after something like that. If they did it multiple times they'd have to go somewhere else. Probably your state where they could win an election saying things like they'd be tough on crime LOL 🤣. I'm sorry it's really not funny..... It it's probably more true than we would like. But you guys could change the law in your state.... I think it might be a good idea to consider it anyway. At least make a requirement that you have to be a lawyer to run to be a judge. I'm baffled at how you could be a judge and not a lawyer (somewhere) 1st. That sounds like kangaroo court or like that 1st Star Trek episode with Q.... Scary 😳 I can understand electing judges, that seems fine at least in principle. But it seems crazy that you could elect I don't know, a plumber to be a judge. What's the idea behind that? To me that just sounds like chaos. I don't even think Klingons would do that! Like could I just have trial by combat instead? How many people were you live have been convicted of witchcraft? I mean it just seems like anything would fly.... Hopefully you don't elect your circuit Court judges so at least a legal professional will hear your appeal.
This is another one of those cases where the judge/count and the prosecution conspired to get a conviction. It is likely that both judge and prosecutor continue in their jobs no worse for it. You would think that conspiring to deprive a person of their rights and liberty would be punishable.
It is, it is called violating a persons civil rights under color of law. It carries up to the death penalty. But it isn't enforced because the entire system is corrupt.
It was in the past, by death!
Nah, this man is guilty as hell and his story makes zero sense. He was invited in by the wife to feed the cats that neither she nor the husband could do. Then he couldn't get a door open, as you know those are rather difficult to use. So he goes into the wife's special room that is her escape plan. Can't get a window open. Hides in a closet with a gun. The husband, just happens to be wondering the house with a hunting knife for reasons. So when he finds the man, he grabs a loaded gun that isn't his, and shoots the husband in the struggle.
All while breaking and entering. Honestly I can see why the judge refused to allow such absurdity in the courts.
Looks like the judge is now serving on the court of appeals.
@@Kevin7557 Agreed. I can't comprehend the level of simping going on in this page for an obviously deceptive bastard. It's making me reevaluate my opinion of the entire channel, if he's championing causes like this.
This is what happened to me in my 2nd degree battery case. The judge blocked the self defense argument allowing us to "only say that I hit him", and that was the only defense we were allowed. So we had to go for insanity which failed. So I was found guilty, but in the sentencing phase I got to tell the story as it actually happen, the jury sentenced me to 0 years, 0 dollars, 0 restitution once they realized the court had played games with them. The judge overturned that and gave me 3 years probation.
2.5 years later they "invent" a charge against me and revoke my probation and I'm found not guilty of the charge they brought originally against me. But I still have to do 7 months on a 3 year sentence for it despite doing nothing a jury felt was illegal.
Friend of mine says if you want Justice go to a whorehouse if you want to get screwed go to a courthouse
so you were basically told "you're not allowed to defend yourself while the prosecution can railroad you and cover you in as much sludge as they want".
My first battery charge had zero evidence against me and I was still found guilty, court systems are only out to make money one way or another and there is nothing that can be done besides bringing back tar and feathers.
Make them look like fools and they will get you on anything.
Did you appeal the sentence? Sounds like the judge was biased and didn't like having his ruling overturned by the jury. Judges and cops egos are out of control!
Something similar happened to me when I was not allowed to use the defense that CPS had recently given us custody of 2 grand children that I was accused of trying to abscond with no keys in the ignition while my wife and I were waiting to get some clothes and supplies for the children …Jan 2001 no cameras and I was convicted of obstruction for asking questions and resisting was added because I wouldn’t take the plea deal. My wife sounded evasive on the witness stand when asked why we had the kids in our car because she couldn’t tell them that we had just been given custody.
If they ask it, you must answer it correctly. It up to the lawyers to object to an improper question.
My local court is a clown show. The judge frequently denies people the right to a court-appointed attorney, and then they will not allow defendants to bring in evidence that exonerates them. They do not allow recording devices of any kind in and they do not appear to have a stenographer. The judge and lawyers get confused about what case they are on sometimes, and the prosecutors will come to court without all of their files. The judge will actually start to argue the prosecution's case for him & doesn't pay attention to the actual laws. Judges get paid extra for convictions and the local judge has a 100% conviction rate. The court appointed attorneys only try to do plea deals (if they actually show up-- there have been times where the attorneys didn't even show up for trial). WTF? Why even have a trial if the defendant isn't allowed to offer any evidence or explanation in his own defense? Kind of makes it all pointless if he can't defend himself. I can and do blame the prosecution for pulling that bs, but the judge should not be allowed to serve as a judge anymore for allowing that injustice.
Name and shame….
What if the prison was private and the judge has a few buddies made a back room deal sending prisoners to private prisons knowing more u send the more money to be made.
Do something about it, media? Protest?
@@jimyhalfpoint5852 Its not a private prison but a news article said that the judges get a bonus for convictions.
THat is SOOOO UNCONSTITUTIONAL that it boils the blood.
There is no federal judge in the world who would allow such a system to operate, where the JUDGE IS PAID FOR CONVICTING people before him.
You could file a one-page pro se complaint in any federal court in your state and that would be declared unconstitutional almost IMMEDIATELY.
DO IT. You can google all the information you need; you don't have to be a lawyer. It doesn't have to be PRETTY. IT doesn't even have to be TYPED or PRINTED. Hand print your complaint and file it in federal court.
Or shut up about it.
Escape window happens to be stuck closed and is in the room where the guns are kept and a pistol just happens to be sitting on the top of the safe. I'd have more questions for the wife.
And the back door was jammed? Things that make you go "Hmmm".
Also I'd be curious as to when the wife told him about her sanctuary room and the escape window.
"her" sanctuary room which happens to have her husbands firearms stored within? Yeah, this isn't adding up to something innocent on her part.
@@scottgilbert9074 I agree, this poor guy was set up.
@@scottgilbert9074 i was wondering about that too. Im curious that if part of the reason why he wasnt allowed to use that specific defense, may have something to do with keeping the wife from testifying, and with that also keeping the husband from having to reveal some detail.
Remember this ladies and gentlemen when you're sitting on a jury, Do not trust the prosecutor or the judge about the things you're about to hear.
Nor the defense attorney.
A jury is there to make a decision, not to be told which way to “decide”.
If the judge and prosecutor have history , their cases shouldn't be allowed n that judges court, especially if that prosecutors sustain favorable outcomes from that particular judge.
This reminds me of the time our local community essentially had to sell chunks of our land to widen the main road.
The Farmer with the most to lose rallied everybody together and the city agreed to have a hearing about it.
It started out with the engineering department of the city explaining what their plans are, and the council got to ask many questions. Next was the main farmer who organized everything, and after explaining his case, the city told him they were not allowed to ask questions. They were simply there to hear his complaint even though they were allowed to ask questions to the engineering department one minute earlier.
I had a judge tell me " You cant tell the truth you'll confuse the jury " If you do I'll find you in contempt and put you in jail
What did you or your attorney say?
What the plarn?! Let them be confused! Then explain until they understand!
AND that was treason and obstruction of justice as well as treason of his sworn oath and duty.
@@6StimuL84 Treason? Settle down. It was wrong and probably illegal but treason? Triggered emotional hyperbole doesn't get anyone anywhere. Grow up.
@@rhoonah5849 treason... Judges violating their oath and the rights of the citizens on purpose typically at the behest of financial gain to undermine and destroy the citizenry is 100% treason
My old professor used to always deny offer of proof during mock trial. It was his thing if it was criminal court. It drove me nuts till I realized why he did it. He wanted us to write an appeal and I wrote many in school. After hearing this I’m glad he did that. I realize the lesson he was trying to teach.
Yet it is also the reason the court system is clogged up. Speedy Trial has taken a backseat to a fictional “version” of due process. Yes, both are very important. However, I’m sure you know these tactics could easily be verbally presented to a judge at initial hearing and sustained/overruled within a few minutes, not weeks/months of frivolous paperwork/filings.
@@flipnotrab yeah the right to a speedy trial has been beaten out of recognition. Routinely years before a trial here in Texas 🤢🤢🤢
That sounds like an excellent (if insanely infuriating) instructor
Can you feed my cats... sound like a perfect plan to get to get rid of one or both of the men.
@@wallywrench9844 well i don't really agree with the plumber argument. first of all, you're not usually going to find a service worker just hiding next to your guns.
"Your Honor, we have video evidence that clearly shows that the perp in this case was not the defendant and in fact was the backyard neighbor of the state's attorney." The judge: "That prejudicial and I won't allow it." Actual case in Kentucky and stood for nearly a decade.
Wait, what? You can't just drop that and not give us any other info. Trial name or something
If that is real, than any evidence against is also prejudicial... that came before trial too... no evidence either side... case is not valid.
For the love of God man, the people need some form of citation
There was a recent case of a guy arrested for trespass because he was watering his neighbours plants.
@@Cheepchipsable was that the one where the guy was watering from over the fence?
That wasnt a silly request by the prosecutor. That was an evil one.
Again, nothing evil about that request. That's a good request. That's a brilliant request. If your opponent can't argue then you win. Nothing evil about it. It's the judge's job to laugh it off and say no chance. Lawyers do lots of crazy things on both sides. That's why there's a judge
@@archmage7813Prosecutors are supposed to strike hard blows, not foul ones. They are held to a higher ethical standard than other attorneys because of their job. Where other attorneys are ethically bound to act in their clients' interests, prosecutors are bound to be honorable and try to get the truth before a jury.
100% you can blame the prosecution. If a cashier at a store tries to sneak in a bunch of extra charges and you catch them you don't just go "Haha can't blame you for trying!" Screw that cashier. A prosecutor has a job to do but that job isn't find guilt at any cost, even if you have to take their rights away at trial.
I disagree, a lawyers job is to try and make the best case for their stance under the guise of the justice system working as intended. If we used the logic you used then defense attorneys would be in the wrong for ensuring the rights of alleged criminals are protected.
I have to be honest with you, as a juror if I saw someone neglect to make the obvious defense and get shown out of the room for a few minutes the moment his attorney gets even close to it, that man would be walking free if I have to hang the jury for a week.
Prosecutors routinely move to block testimony and/or evidence that would otherwise hurt their case. There are many instances where a jury didn't hear about some important context in a case, found out AFTER they delivered a verdict, and then went before the media to say they'd would have delivered the OPPOSITE verdict had they known.
Context is important. It sheds light upon ones reasoning and actions.
the problem with that strategy is that it gives convicts grounds to appeal.
For a "good prosecutor" closing the case would be relevant - let the defendant argue what ever.
Let it be on the record - at least then it is not a ground to appeal the case.
Certain "context" is irrelevant to the crime, that's why as a default prior acts are typically excluded, that's why defendants are not permitted to argue jury nullification, some things are just not relevant to the case. There is a problem with over zealous prosecution, but we can't remedy that by allowing everything in. What we need is more neutral judges. In this case they seemed to overly favor the prosecution.
@@sarowie Acquitted on appeal gets hand-waved away as getting off on a technicality in the eyes of the sorts of people who vote for tough-on-crime politicians. Most prosecutors have dreams of elected office sooner or later.
Sad news. Upon looking for information regarding the new trial granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (their version of the Supreme Court), I discovered that the appellant, Mr. William Rogers, passed away on 3/12/22, prior to the Court's reversal granting a new trial being announced.
He absolutely, without question, had permission to be there. The (lower) appellate Court had decided that, since Rogers "put himself in the position" where he could potentially encounter his affair partner's husband, he could, under no circumstances, claim self-defense. By choosing to enter the home of a man who, if he were to suddenly come home while Rogers was there, could respond in a threatening manner, Rogers had essentially waived his right to defend himself against any threats made by the husband/homeowner. This is, of course, nonsensical.
It's a shame that Mr. Rogers didn't get to have his new trial & be vindicated.
One of the reasons why we have an appeals court. There are a lot of bad judges out there.
Amen!
Its a shame the appeals court even needs to be there to deal with this. Its a waste of court time. The law that allows the prosecution to ask to prevent a defendant from making a defense due to it affecting the likelyhood of a conviction.
the great appeals courts are made up of judges from the lower courts;so you have more of the same.
Makes you think Judges work on Commission for the number of convictions?
Yeah if you have the funds to get a good attorney.
"The man will get a new trial" meanwhile the judge and prosecution get there "pound of flesh" without recourse......
May those prosecutors find themselves having to perform self defense, and not allowed to plead self defense.
May they receive precisely the degree of mercy that they have themselves granted; may they be meted out justice as they have meted it out.
The defendant had permission to be there. He was there to feed her cats.
Yeah but he's the same guy who's sleeping with his wife. He was hiding in a closet. A plumber would not be hiding. An electrician or cable guy would clearly be doing work, which is reasonable. He was hiding in a closet. We all agree, he should have been allowed to raise his defense.
It's actually terrifing, your at the mercy these people, and they couldn't care less about what's right anymore.
Something (kind of) similar happened to me (UK)
I got into a disagreement with a guy outside a bar where he was joined by two friends who surrounded me and my girlfriend. I decided to walk away, but the first guy followed me and squared up to me. After a few words were exchanged, he went to throw a punch at me, but I managed to strike him first which knocked him to the ground. He started to get back up, so being conscious that his two friends were now behind me, I hit him again (before he'd got back to his feet) and I turned to face the other two.
His friends didn't get involved, and police arrived very quickly (unbeknownst to me, they were only about 50 yards away when this all happened).
Anyway, it went to court as I was charged with aggravated assault.
The prosecution tried to have my defence (of self defence) removed on the basis that I'd hit him while he was still technically on the ground (albeit getting to his feet). Due to this, my appointed duty solicitor removed themselves, so I also had to represent myself (I didn't want to wait again for another court date, which was an option due to this, as my employer at the time had to put me on leave while the case was in progress).
All of what happened was caught on CCTV.
The prosecution only wanted to admit a certain portion of the CCTV (from when the first guy squared up to me AFTER the first interaction with him and his friends, up until I'd hit him while he was still technically on the ground).
Luckily, the judge (magistrate) wasn't convinced by the prosecution, and allowed me to claim self defence; ergo, allowing the whole CCTV footage.
My argument of self defence was "righteous" (magistrate's words) as the guy clearly lunged at me first (it was deemed fair for me to use a "preemptive strike') however, the issue was me hitting him while he was still technically on the ground.
The CCTV helped me here too as it showed my reasoning (another two possible attackers) and also showed the first guy (once it was over and I was held by police) was going crazy, threatening me and trying to get at me. This, I believe proved my point that he would have still been a threat to me had I not struck him for a second time (eliminate the threat, so to speak).
The prosecution tried pushing (correctly, I guess) that I could not have known this at the time, but the magistrate felt that it did show some justification. The fact that I was with my girlfriend while this happened also weighed in my favour (apparently it shows a duty for me to be protective, and also shines a bad light on my attackers).
Still, it didn't end as I wanted though, although it did go much better than it could have.
I was found guilty of common assault (lesser than aggravated) based solely on the guy still technically (and in the eyes of the law - having at least one knee down) being on the ground when I struck him the second time. The first strike was not even considered by the court.
The magistrate gave me the lightest possible sentence though. A three month conditional discharge, no costs/fines, and no "victim" surcharge (so he couldn't claim compensation).
Apologies, I didn't realise that my story was so long, lol. Thanks for reading if you got to the end, and stay safe.
*EDIT:*
In case anyone was wondering, I did keep my job even though I'd technically received a "conviction".
Upon request, the court/magistrate was kind enough to write a letter explaining the extenuating circumstances of my guilty verdict.
So all's well that ends well, I guess.
If you're attacked in the UK you're not going home, there's only two possible places you'll go:
A hospital, or a prison cell.
Sorry to hear you went through such bullshit, I'm glad it worked out not too terribly; but still. This is one reason why the few times in my life I've been facing a potentially violent encounter I try as hard as possible to evade, but I know that's not always possible. I've been fortunate that _most_ of the time it's possible to deescalate directly, or my commitment to deescalation got me support from bystanders, but it's still scary when it happens.
P.S. F**k those prosecutors who tried to railroad you like that.
I AM GLAD THINGS 'WORKED OUT FOR YOU', SORT OF..THE POLICE..ALWAYS ELIMINATE THE THREAT...ONCE STARTED, YOU SHOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED LEGAL RIGHT ...TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT AND ..MAKE YOURSELF SAFE...THIS CRAP THAT YOU WERE USING EXCESS FORCE SINCE THE GUY WAS ..ON THE GROUND IS CRAP...I LIKE HOW YOU PUT IT..PREEMPTIVE STRIKE..OF COURSE..SELF DEFENSE..MAN SORRY YOU WENT THROUGH THIS TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE..THANKS FOR THE STORY...
@@Treblaine yep, the government doesn't like people defending themselves or others. it makes us less dependent on them and they can't have that
Good for you
My criminal law professor required us to memorize a bunch of common law crimes. Almost 30 years later, I still remember them. The common law definition of burglary was the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. So at common law burglaries had to happen at night at someone's home. You couldn't be convicted of burglary for breaking into an office during the day.
There was a very funny case in our casebook about burglary. As I recall, in England in the 1970s, there was a young man out and about that decided he wanted to find a woman for sex. He preferred to find one who was willing, but would force a girl if he couldn't find a willing one. To be clear that isn't the funny part. As he was walking past a home, he noticed a pretty girl in an upstairs window. He stripped off all his clothes, except his socks "in case he had to make a quick getaway" and climbed the terrace. As he reached the girl's window, the girl realized 3 things. First, there was a man outside her window, second, that man was naked, and third that man had an erection. It was dark and she thought he was her boyfriend so she invited him in and had sex with him. Afterwards she realized it wasn't her boyfriend so she screamed and the guy was arrested. Was he guilty of rape? No, because the sex had been consensual even if that was because she thought he was someone else. But did he commit burglary? That question hinged on whether he broke and entered the plane of the window before he was invited in because burglary requires that you break and enter with the INTENT to commit a felony. It doesn't matter if you actually go on to commit a felony, just that you intended to. As I recall the court decided that his erection had broken the plane of the window and the guy had therefore been guilty of burglary.
Less amusing was a case from NYC in the 1990s. There was a Columbia University grad student named Oliver Jovanovic, that was into BDSM. He met a girl on the Internet, they exchanged emails, and met in person. He tied her up, engaged in BDSM play and had sex with her over a weekend. Afterwards she claimed it hadn't been a consensual. At trial, the judge excluded all of the e-mails between Jovanovic and the woman citing the NY rape shield law. While I think defendants shouldn't normally be able to use a victim's sexual history as a defense, this was different. To say an email in which the girl asked Jovanovic to do the very things he was accused of doing to her should be excluded is ridiculous. His whole defense was it was consensual! That doesn't mean he might not be guilty. Even if she asked him to do it prior to their meeting, she still had a right to change her mind. If she told him to stop, he had to stop. But he absolutely should have been able to enter her emails into evidence. An appeals court did reverse his conviction and order a new trial. But he spent 20 months in prison where he was assaulted by an inmate first. The DA wanted to retry him, but the alleged victim refused to testify, arguably because she knew she would be cross examined with the contents of the emails. Did I mention the girl's grandmother told the media her granddaughter was a notorious liar? The case made me mad. I can only imagine how Jovanovic felt.
Well... I think the rape case in England you mentioned a jury could not possibly have found that credible... How could you let a person in, have sex with them, and somehow NOT know its not your b.f.? I mean. They didnt speak... I dont care how dark it is, if you can see he has an erection, surely shed have seen his face at some point during the act... It just strains credibility.... As for the Jovanovic case... I was once dating a woman who asked me to act out a "rape fantasy" she had where she would leave her door unlocked and id "sneak in" in the middle of the night...needless to say, good judgement set off all sorts of alarm bells in my head and that relationship was quickly ended... Sometimes a guy has to be sure hes thinking with the right head
Thank you for posting those cases. ❤
Pathological lying is one of the red flags of a psychopath.
Did Jovanovic 'sue' the inmates for 'non-consentual' sex? 😂
@@EugeneSSmithI believe Jovanovic was stabbed, not sexually assaulted. I have no idea if he sued anyone over the attack.
The defense ought to have the right to make ANY claim and let the court and jury decide it's efficacy. I fail to understand how or why a defendant would be restricted from making any argument. If he says he is innocent because his lawn flamingoes did it, he should be able to argue that.
Debating flamingo issues in front of the jury could unduly burden the jury etc. Thus a sanity check, but here it was used insanely, perhaps the judge has a dim view on extramarital affairs
Of course not.
How are you not going to allow someone to defend themselves? INSANITY!
Was the judge a kangaroo 🦘
@High Lord Baron Or at least the defendant should have the right to argue with the judge if he is allowed to argue with the judge if he as the defendant as the right to argue in front of the jury. But why so many hoopes? Rather cut into the specifics of the defense. But why that? The "victim" can also use the arguments of the defendant to paint a picture of the situation. The argument "I came home, found an unknown men, he shoot me and now he is mocking me - the victim - by claiming selfe defense in my house where he was without my permission?" could be strong picture to the jury. Yes, defendant had permission from the girl friend, but the statement of fact that he had no permission from the victim will not be disputed - it only sound "bad" when put into context.
@@dougjones9493 Bob Keeshan, aka Captain
Worked in the Alex Jones lawsuit. I thought that’s what this video was about.
it happens everyday in every court. did you just move here from the moon?
The idea that you could be barred from using any defense is insane and goes against the very core concept of justice. I've heard of this happening several times in the last few years and I can't for the life of me figure out how it could possibly be legal. We are guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution. Preventing people from presenting their defense is definitionally unfair. I can't express enough how much this pisses me off.
Judge: Why shouldn't they be allowed to use this defense?
Prosecutor: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Ok, motion granted.
Judge has probably lost a few wives to random dudes that "just stopped by to feed her kitty".
Sounds like something you would see on Futurama or The Simpsons
Great reference :D
The pen is blue.
I thought of the same movie when the prosecution's motion was discussed.
That fact that any evidence can be suppressed by either side is absolute BS.
This is an actual example of a kangaroo court. It hurts the entire judiciary when something like that happens.
Trump is fighting for his troubles in two kangaroo courtd.
the talmud did quite a number on the first world.
Get the cat to testify. That should clear it up.
“The Jury finds the primary witness to be adorable, no other consensus has been reached”
I trust the cat more than I trust the wife.
The judges and prosecutors involved both have their heads firmly planted in their A! Even a non attorney knows this is totally WRONG.
Yes, but from what I've heard it's very common in American courtrooms.
How are they wrong? The law in Texas clearly doesn't recognize the perps right to self defense since he attacked the lawful homeowner in his own home. Should some random thug be able to argue self defense if they just shoot someone on the street for their wallet? You are not allowed to raise a defense that has no legal merit. Many would be robbers have attempted to raise this asinine defense after killing victims who fought back only to have the courts immediately squash such nonsense. Perhaps the next mass shooters should then also be able to raise the claim of self defense as well. That would be interesting.
I'm curious why he didn't fire his lawyers when they agreed not to mount a defense.
@@GunnyO326 Your argument makes sense. This was not a mass shooter, yes he was in someone's home and the homeowner was surprised to find him. The whole point of this story is he was not allowed to defend himself in court. He was there with the other home owners permission. He had a key and the pass code to the house's security system. He has evidence to show he was told to be there. Yet he was charged with burglary. How did you miss this whole point?
Attourneys don't argue morality.
For that alone they should be abolished.
How long did the man send time in jail before getting a new trial?
Judges shouldn't have so much power about what the jury hears. Let the jury hear it all and let them sort it out. That's what they are there for.
There is a need to avoid unduly prejudicial information from leaning a jury, but largely almost anything related to the case should be allowed IMO. I don’t think there should be *no* limits, but the example in this video isn’t even close to reasonable.
That's literally just what a judge's job is. It's a necessary part of the legal system. Without it either side could just make stuff up and say it without any repercussions.
@@eaglestdogg It's perjury. Untruths can get jail time. The mechanism is already in place.
@@derrick9653 it's not hard to imply things without explicitly lying. Implications are enough to bias a jury. That's why there are rules as to what you can argue and how you can make arguments.
@@haph2087 perhaps things can get out of control, but to deny a person defending themselves the right to tell their own story isn't a trial...it's a farcical faux show of justice. We act like juries are stupid and that they can't sort out all of the information and assign its relevance or that direct lies cannot be punished...but that simply isn't the case.
Many judges in Texas feel their DUTY is to help the prosecution convict criminal defendants. Since most were prosecutors before being elected judges, they don't see that their role in the system has changed, and that they are there to "protect the community".
@@iridium8341 in the UK, you can request to be tried by jury.
I've served 3 times as a juror myself
Maybe former prosecutors should be barred from becoming judges then.
It’s a felony to litigate from the bench
That's why the state legislature enacted a law that stopped allowing the governor to give pardon/clemency orders for inmates. They were afraid a liberal governor would stop too many death row executions. So, the law requires a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles to first approve requests for pardons/clemency/etc and those approved are sent to the governor to approve.
@@popo_53 All States have some type of judicial review board where you can submit allegations for Judicial misconduct and they can be subjected to punishment including removal from the bench. Qualified immunity protects them from civil and criminal suits. Smarten up before you run off at the mouth housewife
Steve, I have tried about 20 cases or so from DUI to murder. I can't understand for the life of me how the trial judge, whom I would imagine has tried many more cases than I, thought this was acceptable? Very sad to see this happening.
Maybe they didn't believe it was acceptable, but didn't care? The reason why we have police and courts is because people in general do not follow laws without consequences, right? So it stands to reason that if the people involved are immune to prosecution themselves the only thing that would stop them from doing such a thing would be their own good nature. Some people have it and can be trusted to do what is right even without the threat of consequences, but others don't and that's what erodes at liberties.
@@Elliandr Oh I believe that happens more often than we think .
Wasn't this in Texas? I didn't look it up but I do know that they elect their judges. A former colleague of mine ran for "office" with no legal experience at all.
@@derrick9653 The US elected a president not too long ago that had zero political or legislative experience. Seems to be a thing in the US.
@@ragtop63 I actually don't think that is really a bad thing in politics. Building an entrenched political class defeats the point of tossing out a monarchy/aristocracy. One failure of our political system in the US is that we have failed to institute term limits, have allowed special privileges for legislative and executive electees and appointees, and have failed to clamp down on multigenerational corruption in politics.
A trial done holding evidence for the plaintiff should be grounds for a lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
I am amazed at how much power a judge has to influence the outcome of a JURY trial. How did this come to be?
Right the judge is suppose to make sure the law process( according to the written law n the books) is followed not to put his personal opinions n to play, that's why judges need to be evaluated by a party not affiliated by within their jurisdiction, but outside.
@@darrellwilliams5657State legislatures can reign these courts in but they don’t.
In places where judges are elected, the fact that "I will be tough on crime" is apparently something people vote for rather than against is a significant part of it.
I've seen this kind of thing more than once and I honestly don't think courts should have ANY ability to limit what someone can say in their own defense at all. People should be free to make whatever kind of defense they want and the jury should be there to consider it's validity. In modern jury systems the jury is largely there as a useless facade to be manipulated and make everyone think that trials are fair. Their decision-making abilities have been eroded to the point where the primary points of having a jury of your peers in the first place has been lost.
Very true. I suppose a jury would convict a ham sandwich if you could carefully craft what lies they were allowed to hear.
@@evancourtney7746 Absolutely!
Yet another justification for jury nullification!
I'm personally against the idea of a trial by jury of peers. A trial by jury is important to drown out any individual person's bias (although it does little for cultural and systemic biases), but it's the "of peers" part that gets me.
The average American is slow, poorly educated, and lacks empathy. And the jury selection process scrubs out anyone with opinions and knowledge that might impact the case; I get that its purpose is to keep premature verdicts out of the courtroom, but all it really does is select for uninformed potatoes who can't critically process what is given to them. The jury bench is thus stuffed full of the dumbest members of the community.
Seriously, if you're on trial for some kind of felony you know you didn't commit, do you want your fate decided by people who read at a 4th or 5th grade level, whose understanding of civics comes from a steady diet of Tucker Carlson and Miller Lite? Fuck no. Triply so if you're black or gay.
Would it really be such an evil thing to have professional jurors? I'd be more comfortable with having a jury filled with people who have a profit motive to be fair and just (and on the flip side, being on a jury that caused a mistrial would be a black stain on their career), who have to study the law along with advanced critical thinking skills that would qualify them for a position as an adjunct professor. The jury selection process would be a matter of looking through each juror's record and kicking out the ones that demonstrate any clear biases that would hinder your case. It'd be much more efficient and fair.
@Luke Fabis I understand what you are saying. I believe the "of your peers" has been misunderstood over time. When it was adopted, most all communities from which a jury would be gathered were small enough that everyone knew of everyone else. They may not have had a personal relationship with them, but, at the very least, they knew of their character through their reputation. I believe it originally meant the people who knew you, knew your character, and therefore, if you were prone to lying versus were honest or prone to fits of rage versus being controlled under all circumstances or any other type of behaviour to better judge if you were guilty or innocent. Now, if you know the defendant, you are disqualified to serve on the jury, the exact opposite of the original intent.
That just happened to me. I was getting foreclosed on a piece of land that didn't even have a mortgage. They are more concerned about their procedure and the steps to responding to a statement of claim instead of the simple " hey look, this isn't even the right mortgage loan numbers or correct parcel of land". It's like the twilight zone.
Report their lawyers to the barr, sue the bank.
How long did this man spend in custody, jail, and prison as this played out? Upon him being found innocent, or even that the prosecutors and judge deprived them of a fair trial/defense, the judge and prosecutors should face a review by citizens and possible prosecution.
One jury I served on, during deliberations, one guy kept saying "He's guilty because he did not take the stand and say he didnt do it!" I pointed out (several times) that one of the foundations of our legal system is the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the defendant does NOT have to testify. He said "Sure I know all that. But if he was innocent he would have taken the stand and said so, so he must be guilty." I said there could be many reasons why he did not, most lawyers dont want their clients to testify, maybe he stutters or doesnt speak well, maybe the fact the he was black and all of us were white was bothering him. I said obviously I couldnt stop him from thinking this way, but if he kept saying it I would make sure the judge knew about it and there would probably be a mistrial.
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) about how many people like that are on juries. People who don't understand the law or the principles of our justice system. People who do not judge based on facts and evidence but instead on emotion and personal bias. Depending on where you live, it might be better do a bench trial, especially if you have a judge who cares about upholding the law. It's a shame the population has been so dumbed down we can't have fair trials anymore, but it is what it is.
This juror is committing a total violation of the 5th amendment
The second time he said that absurd statement you should have passed a note to the judge. Fools like that are why there are alternate jurors.
What happened?
@@chrisbudesa He wound up not saying it anymore. We voted to convict.
@@chrisbudesa But I would point out that the alternates are released before the jury begins deliberations (at least here); it would have been a mistrial.
He had permission to be in the house (from the wife) ... that’s not breaking and entering or burglary... he was an invited guest and was threatened. That’s pure self defense.
assuming the invitation is real.
@@kunzilla that’s a matter for the jury and has zero relevance.
Not sure it wasn’t setup to give the guy a reason to “defend himself” and kill the husband. But… the jury should get to decide.
@@AbNomal621 Assuming the woman setup this scenario in the hope of solving all her problems, then one could argue that we have one criminal master mind and two victims.
@@kunzilla and even if it wasn't real, the jury should still hear it. Guilt must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and refusing evidence into trial means that they aren't hearing the full story to do so.
Edit: I was informed that the phrase was beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, I am human and make mistakes, but my point still stands.
It sounds like the husband should have been the one on trial here.
The saddest thing are some of the judges on the bench these days
These days??? Lol. Of course corrupt government officials is a new phenomena.
That judge should have been sincered or removed.
If she gave him access and he was there at her request, the charge of burglary is toast.
She could not give him permission to handle a gun that was not hers. He was a burglar as soon as he picked up that gun.
@@rmhartman Except the little matter of self defense ;)
@@rmhartman You really should read the definition of burglary . "entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft". If he didn't enter the building illegally (he didn't) there is no burglary.
@@rmhartman He was attacked with a lethal weapon, that gives him the right to defend himself including picking up objects owned by the attacker. He does not have the right to take the gun with him home, but he can use it to defend himself.
@@rmhartman
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 30.02
Burglary
(a)A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1)enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2)remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3)enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
It can't ever be considered burglarly if he had a right to be there by permission. At most they can get is assault assuming self defense is defeated.
This is crazy, I would like to see the CHEATING Wife's text messages and see if she set these 2 guys up to get into a fight. This is CLEARLY self defense but if the wife had sent both her husband and the man she was having an affair with into the home to cause the fight, isn't she the one committing the crime here?
Fair chance of that tbh
Women don't commit crimes. And if they do it's someone else's fault, don't you know?
@@frankconley6321 That's simp talk bruh, women commit crimes all the time.
Equal responsibility requires equal accountability. Equal accountability demands equal justice. Demand nothing less from these 304's.
@@Jamez84 it was likely sarcasm
Many judgeships are filled as a direct result of affirmative action objectives,in which lesser competent persons become judges because of their protected class status, rather than their legal, experience, knowledge and proficiency...😢
- Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
- No
- What do you mean "No"?
- You prohibited me not to under motion in limine
yeah, that is why you do not let the defendant speak at all.
And going trough the show of arguing in front of the jury, the jury being send out, then the jury returning and being told to forget.... does not look good for a defendant.
I suppose the only tactic is to set up for the appeal by entering to the record every time the defense withheld evidence based on the direction of the judge.
Then the transcript looks ridiculous on review/appeal. It would also be ridiculous to have the jury in and out constantly to enter it.
Having said that this particular guy clearly made a series of unwise decisions that lead to his crime.
At any point he could have changed his path.. or avoided adultury in the first place 🤣
Another serious problem, is when your attorney refuses to use a defense that is perfectly valid, because he’s afraid of the judge or the law-enforcement community. I know of such cases.
Another thing to consider, is the incredible amount of money, time and aggravation that this defendant went through, because a judge would not allow an OBVIOUS and reasonable defense.
Recently I walked a guy charged with burglary. He got home and found his wife with another man.
There was pushing and shoving by both men. Then the husband left. Cops arrived, took a report and issued warrant for the husband for burglary.
I just went through the whole process and about a week before trial I gave the prosecution a copy of the lease that stated my client was the rentor and had every right to be on the property.
Dismissed two days before trial.
It sounds like the original trial judge has experience with catching his/her spouse cheating, and saw this as an opportunity at getting some vicarious "justice" for themselves.
Yes, seems something unspoken is happening there.
If he's that much of a jerk, I'm on his wife's side.
@@rikkilleen3169 Another simp.
Underrated comment!
"Your Honor, it's come to our attention that justice may prevail if the defendant is allowed to proceed with his defense arguments. We must not let that happen......"
Congrats on this video being cited in case law! ❤
This happens with the truth in court every day. A person should be able to defend himself with any crazy excuse they want. And leave it to the jurors to decide what’s true.
Stories like this make me think if you ever get involved with the court system, you've already lost even if you eventually win.
That is absolute truth
Divorces are civil cases, but the only winners are the attorneys.
This is known.
Yeah, the process is the punishment... the police have thier own version. "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride"
So don't play by their rules. If you're going to jail anyway, MAKE IT WORTH IT.
I know someone who went to trial and could prove he was at work an hour drive away from the crime scene at the time the crime happened. His timecard was ruled inadmissable for defense because his worksite had no cameras to prove he was physically present at his job and didn't prove no one clocked him in and out on his behalf. He spent 3 years in state prison. Testimony form coworkers was also ruled inadmissable.
I would guarantee that if he was being prosecuted for something that happened at the worksite then his timecard would definitely be used as evidence by the prosecution.
That's nuts. If that was the prosecutors reasoning, then he needs to prove the defendant was not at work. Not allowing that defense is denying the defendant due process. But what do I know, common sense often seems to be missing in a court of law these days.
I'm not a juror, but I believe his story of self defense.
IF he has texts, that's pretty damning against the prosecution.
Not allowing those texts into evidence is a travesty of justice
Regardless, it's shady af and speaks to possibly a larger conspiracy that they just outright denied this line of defense
We in the US are faced with a judicial crisis of too many incompetent jurists running things!
This country needs such a vast purge of its unjust authority.
That is true, but hey, at least we are not living in a country where the prosecution wins 99% of cases. Btw, this country I'm talking about isn't some third world dictatorship, it's Japan.
@Mind of a dark horse ---aren't You also forgetting Incompetent Judges AND police Officers there are also most of these citizen jurists, judges, attorneys (No disrespect, Mr. Lehto YOU. Sir are a Rarity of a Unicorn of the court system, An Honest and Principled Gentleman of Character and Integrity) I was simply saying that There are ACTUAL REAL jurists, Judges and attorneys and Police who are voluntarily (secretly) CORRUPT, and only saying and behaving in ways that Shields their own actions towards protecting their own rears!!
@@Tommy9834 Hell, I bet Iran is worse! The death penalty for not properly wearing a scarf!
@@mind_of_a_darkhorse yes, but Iran is a war torn theocracy.
I used Japan as an example because it's a 1st world country, economically stable, and a legitimate democracy, yet even then you could have a justice system, that's worst than ours.
Your honor I would like to argue that I am not guilty based on the facts of reality.
Judge and prosecutor: oh we don't want him to talk about reality or what actually happened so yeah let's not let him do that.
Justice!
Personally, I'd be asking for a Summery Judgement of Dismissal based on the length of time since the Alleged Offense and the MANY Violations of Procedure and Court Rules committed by the Courts...
I'd also be making Formal Complaints against the Idiots on the Bench for their Insane Rulings...
Given it's Texas, I'd tell the judge I was placing him under citizen's arrest on the federal felony charge of conspiracy against rights under color of law. State judges are not immune to arrest for federal felonies, and Texas citizen's arrests have the same legal standing as one by a police officer. The US Supreme Court has ruled that unless there is a superseding statute forbidding it, citizen's arrests are lawful (US v. Di Re (1948)).
Ordering a criminal defendant to not present the ONLY possible defense against the charges against him would allow any chance of success whatsoever is unequivocally a violation of the fifth amendment right to due process.
Exchanged hundreds of emails with the wife ... definitely a plumber (but not for the plumbing or the cats either). He then proceeds to attack husband in the husband's home when confronted (rather than retreating). And then claims self defense afterwards. I am not shedding any tears for this jerk and I hope he get a severe sentence in his new trial.
How the hell can you tell someone not to argue self-defense?
When it is a situation that precludes a self-defense argument. For example, white supremacist Frazier Glenn Miller had his attempts to argue self-defense shot down after he killed a few people shooting up either a synagogue or Jewish cultural center.
Abuse of power and process.
Self-defense has some legal requirements, and if you can't explain how you could possibly meet those requirements, it could just confuse the jury. That's why you're supposed to get the chance to show there is at least something that could possibly back your claim.
Sadly, some criminal court judges think of themselves as "crime-fighters" rather than as neutral arbiters of justice. This was likely one of those judges.
I've said for years that if I ever had to testify, it would go like this:
Lawyer: "Please answer yes or no."
Me: "I refuse to answer that with yes or no. I've sworn to tell the WHOLE truth, and you want me to give a partial truth. Unless I can reply with context, I'm not answering."
I get what you mean, but it would probably be better to let your lawyer fix that in redirect.
"I swore an oath to tell the whole truth and that requires more than a yes or no."
I like the oath reference.
and you'd get held in contempt of court, guaranteed. don't mess with a judge's ego, because they're absolutely massive, almost as big as the beer gut on most of these losers
You can't actually do that. You do that it's contempt of court if the judge feels spicy. So... No. You would not. You answer yes or no and then it's your attorneys job on cross examination to give you the opportunity to give the context
@@Setixir "Do you confirm that, according to your knowledge, the defendant stopped his habit of raping children every Sunday? Please answer yes or no."
"But he never..."
"CONTEMPT OF COURT!"
This scares me, the judicial system is supposed to be just and fair.
30+ years ago, I was apprised of the story of our previous church music leader who was in prison on a pedophilia charge against his young granddaughter (don't recall the age, but between 5 and 8, I think). There was absolute evidence that she had been sexually assaulted. However, during this assault (the only one that had ever occurred), she had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. The grandfather did not currently, nor had he EVER, been infected with this disease, which is easily detectable, even after cured. The daughter-in-law's boyfriend DID have that disease (there had been a VERY ugly divorce from the man's son). The ONLY testimony allowed against the grandfather was the carefully scripted tearful testimony against him. The judge decreed that the medical evidence was inadmissible and not relevant to the case. It had been fought and fought for YEARS, but never any resolution, despite that he was SO obviously innocent.
off with that judges head
Interestingly, the idea of making certain evidence inadmissible in court was pushed by women, in matters related to sexual crimes. So hard to feel sorry for the alleged victim in the case.
@johnlove2954 the alleged victim was apparently 5-8 years old so I don't know why you "don't feel sorry" for a child when a bunch of narcissists ruined her life
@@stevengoldsworthy2079 Her age does not matter. If an innocent person is screwed, he is screwed. In fact, if the judge made evidence admissible in this case, just because the victim was a small girl, he would do injustice to countless men, young and old, who were not allowed this relief, irrespective of their innocence or criminality.
That judge proved that he cares more about law and justice than age and gender of the victim, and that is a huge relief
@@johnlove2954so, you're saying that allowing evidence (that would have let an innocent man walk free) to be admissible would ruin the lives of countless young men? You're literally saying "yeah, the judge was right. The child rapist should walk free, and the innocent grandfather should be in prison."
Wtf are you talking about?
Seems like we have an incompetent judge still working on the bench!
He was elected. He doesn't have to be competent. Elections past has proven this true...
I don't doubt this happened in texas considering I've lived here my whole life. I have my own crazy story that happened in court. I used to pay child support until he grew up, but in the middle of it I had changed jobs. During that time I had given her in person payments in cash until the state resumed garnishment from my paycheck from new job. We had a readjustment hearing afterwards and in court the judge asked her if I had given money to her while that happened and she said YES. Then he stopped and told her "hey you do know if you say no, he will own you that money again. Do you want to change your statement?". I couldn't believe it! Lucky she was honest and kept her Yes answer...