Posted on Oct 7, 2021
Ahmaud Arbery murder suspects seek to ban Confederate flag license plate from evidence
600
9
8
5
5
0
Murder
Judge
Lawyer
Justice
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
I know little of the case. Based on this article, I would agree with the defense. The License plate has no relevance. And it *would* cast bias.
We all know that in today's America, anyone who displays the stars and bars is automatically a racist. It does not matter why it is displayed, it does not matter what they believe, it does not matter who the individual is. If they display the stars and bars, they are automatically racist, period, end of story. At least that is the narrative.
Unless the license plate has some significance other than prejudicing the jury, it is irrelevant and has no reason to be admitted. And I am willing to be dollars to donuts, that is exactly why the prosecutor wants to include it. He doesn't have to officially call the defendants racists or *prove* they are racists. He can just show this license plate and everyone will automatically assume they are racist, because that is what the media has conditioned them to assume. And the defense can't cross-examine a license plate.
We all know that in today's America, anyone who displays the stars and bars is automatically a racist. It does not matter why it is displayed, it does not matter what they believe, it does not matter who the individual is. If they display the stars and bars, they are automatically racist, period, end of story. At least that is the narrative.
Unless the license plate has some significance other than prejudicing the jury, it is irrelevant and has no reason to be admitted. And I am willing to be dollars to donuts, that is exactly why the prosecutor wants to include it. He doesn't have to officially call the defendants racists or *prove* they are racists. He can just show this license plate and everyone will automatically assume they are racist, because that is what the media has conditioned them to assume. And the defense can't cross-examine a license plate.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
1SG (Join to see) - Because it is prejudicial.
The only reason to present the license plate is because it paints a certain picture of the Defendants. it has no bearing on the actual case, therefore should not be permitted - just like high school report cards showing mostly D's (on behalf of prosecutiion) or straight A's (on behalf of Defense) shouldn't be admitted, because it has nothing to do with the case.
Admitting it *wouldn't* be fair because the stars and bars are now automatically assumed to be racist, regardless of any details involved. Admitting that license plate shifts the burden of proof; the Defendants are automatically guilty, and now the Defense has to prove they aren't racist. If the Defense can prove they aren't racist, THEN the prosecution will have to actually prove their guilt. No, that isn't what the rules or the law says, but that is how this will play out, because people are people.
The real argument is, if the plate isn't relevant, why would the prosecution even want to introduce it? All things being fair.
The only reason to present the license plate is because it paints a certain picture of the Defendants. it has no bearing on the actual case, therefore should not be permitted - just like high school report cards showing mostly D's (on behalf of prosecutiion) or straight A's (on behalf of Defense) shouldn't be admitted, because it has nothing to do with the case.
Admitting it *wouldn't* be fair because the stars and bars are now automatically assumed to be racist, regardless of any details involved. Admitting that license plate shifts the burden of proof; the Defendants are automatically guilty, and now the Defense has to prove they aren't racist. If the Defense can prove they aren't racist, THEN the prosecution will have to actually prove their guilt. No, that isn't what the rules or the law says, but that is how this will play out, because people are people.
The real argument is, if the plate isn't relevant, why would the prosecution even want to introduce it? All things being fair.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
1SG (Join to see) Not at all. America's judicial system is founded upon the principle of innocent until PROVEN guilty. The prosecution bears the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof to the defense is anathema to American jurisprudence.
Further, the prosecution (and defense) is required to limit themselves to relevant facts and evidence. It is why lawyers are allowed to object to questions or evidence which is irrelevant in the first place. Objections over relevance is one of the more common courtroom objections.
If it irrelevant, it should not be admitted. Plain and simple.
Further, the prosecution (and defense) is required to limit themselves to relevant facts and evidence. It is why lawyers are allowed to object to questions or evidence which is irrelevant in the first place. Objections over relevance is one of the more common courtroom objections.
If it irrelevant, it should not be admitted. Plain and simple.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - The guy is toast with the current evidence as it is. I don't think the defense will be able to paint a mistrial before it happens anyway.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google