3 ms·

A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk drivi

A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk driving, ergo motive will be central to prosecution and defense alike. B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. C) Jury nullification.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). You literally can, You have to, of course, prove the elements of the offense, but iif the defense wants to introduce evidence whose only legal relevance is proving an element of the crime, the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to the legally relevant fact and render the evidence unnecessary. Generally, the defense will not wish to prove the crime, though. > B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. That’s an argument agasinst them spending effort proving a key element of the offense. > C) Jury nullification. Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  > Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason. What's interesting about this is it places jurors into a position where they need to decide whether to make an adverse inference against the state. If they have reason to believe that the defense may have wanted to present such facts but the state disallowed it, then it makes sense to refuse to convict (even if they wouldn't otherwise be in favor of nullification) so as not to participate in a show trial. But they can't actually know whether this happened because explaining why you committed a crime is usually a terrible idea, so you'd usually expect it to not happen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 2y ago

> A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). You literally can, You have to, of course, prove the elements of the offense, but iif the defense wants to introduce evidence whose only legal relevance is proving an element of the crime, the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to the legally relevant fact and render the evidence unnecessary. Generally, the defense will not wish to prove the crime, though. > B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. That’s an argument agasinst them spending effort proving a key element of the offense. > C) Jury nullification. Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason.

ndriscoll 2y ago
> Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason. What's interesting about this is it places jurors into a position where they need to decide whether to make an adverse inference against the state. If they have reason to believe that the defense may have wanted to present such facts but the state disallowed it, then it makes sense to refuse to convict (even if they wouldn't otherwise be in favor of nullification) so as not to participate in a show trial. But they can't actually know whether this happened because explaining why you committed a crime is usually a terrible idea, so you'd usually expect it to not happen.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]