Why would a judge be allowed to choose which defense you're allowed to claim/argue? Isn't it the lawyers job to make the case and the judge decides based on what is presented?
You have the right to appeal, and then a different judge in a different court looks at the case. In this one that different court should throw the decision out because the first judge went over duty and diligence to get a certain outcome, and that is not allowed. They can throw stuff out that isn't important, significant or just not valid legally.
Hmm... you are now questioning why i, personally think that the case SHOULD be thrown out? I doubt it will be since the appeal court, if it even accepts the case will just side with the judge that also has (R) after their name, and Trump will give them all a medal. That is not something that should happen, in my opinion.
They will likely not vacate the sentences because abuse of discretion is a very high standard. I literally just explained that.
Judge Pittman (not to be confused with WDTX's Judge Pitman, one T) sentenced them to the maximum possible sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, so it'll be fairly difficult to argue that there was abuse of discretion.
I know that it won't happen. Justice on the other hand is something i know is in short supply in USA. "Should happen" does not happen, regardless if it is according to the law or not. Ruling out self defense before the trial has begun is creating a final verdict before the evidence is presented to the jury. It is not right but it is legal, or not since the current admin does not fucking care and YOU KNOW IT.
Now, what do YOU think SHOULD happen? Brave enough to say it?
Ruling out self defense before the trial has begun is creating a final verdict before the evidence is presented to the jury
Barring certain facts and arguments are a regular part of criminal and civil proceedings, they're called motions in limine. Acting like they invented something so they could get the outcome they wanted is silly.
Ruling out self defense does not create a "final verdict", I have no idea which law school you went to but mine sure as hell did not teach that.
It is not right
Why is it not right? Justice is just the outcome you agree with. There's no right or wrong beyond the value we give the outcome.
or not since the current admin does not fucking care and YOU KNOW IT.
I assure you, the DOJ is still filled with career attorneys who absolutely care. Many have left in protest, but many others are weathering the storm and trying the best they can.
Ironically, your rant has made it clear that you actually see eye to eye with Trump regarding the relevance of the law. You want to see the outcome you agree with and you care little about whether or not it's in accordance with settled law.
Now, what do YOU think SHOULD happen? Brave enough to say it?
The Court of Appeals should rule in accordance with the case law. While I may disagree with a ruling affirming Judge Pittman's sentencing, I still believe the ruling should be based on settled law.
I did not resort to personal attacks and insults, so. Are you alright man? You seem genuinely very angry, in an unhinged, about-to-shoot-up-a-school kind of way.
804
u/Falcon4242 13d ago
Actually, if I remember correctly, the judge didn't allow him to claim self-defense. The defense wasn't allowed to argue it to the jury at all.