IMPD OFFICER LEATH MURDER TRIAL

[Kirk Freeman]

No it doesn't. Anyone who's been in a courtroom knows that attempting to keep information *out*, regardless of the truth of it, is part of the game. It's why jurors can't ask questions without them being approved first.

Looked at the CCS. It was the prosecution attempting to keep out evidence of Dorsey's mental health issues. Law enforcement fought to keep out the truth about Dorsey right up to the last minute (did not know Jes Paxson was in Marion Co. now, she was up here for a couple of years). Don't blame them it was the only way to obtain Murder otherwise it seemed, looking at the CCS only, it looked strong for Manslaughter or Reckless.

It was the prosecution that dismissed the death penalty (likely [don't know for certain] because of Dorsey's health).

"Your recent post about getting somebody off with a glock switch. Was it the truth that he was not factually guilty of a legal violation or were you able to keep the truth out of court based on convincing someone it was against the rules to know that truth?"

I think you mean the latter, but it was the truth that LPD made an unconstitutional stop based on race. But the Constitution is above all.

"Are defense attorneys under oath? If you know your client is guilty, can you say so since it's the truth?"

Duty to tell the truth and candor to tribunal, so yes. If my client is guilty, can I say? If in his best interest, yes, absolutely like with lesser included offense like Dorsey (Ray did a great job), self-defense (yes, the Defendant shot him but here's why) or possession vs. dealing in unlicensed pharmacy matters.

"I understand why the system is the way it is, especially given it's been layered on over and over into an increasingly byzantine system that supports the people who keep adding layers on to it, but it's not about the truth. Only idealists and lawyers would say something to ridiculously incongruent with reality."

Do not disagree. The goal is a constitutional trial. How that squares with one's mirovozzreniye is sometimes tough to do no matter how much one planes.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've been saying for years the "justice system" is a farce. This doesn't change my opinion.

Isn't this the case where they stopped letting officers in uniform from sitting in the gallery?

How did the "justice system" fail? Law enforcement failed to keep out the truth of Dorsey's mental health but isn't mens rea an extremely important matter in criminal trials?

As to officers in the courtroom, the Court's ruling of 18 JAN was this:

"Defendant's pleading #100 [objection to armed uniformed police body armor taking all the seats like at the PTC]: Pertaining to gallery layout 1/4 of available seats reserved for victims family, 1/4 of available seats for defendant's family, 1/4 of seats available for media, 1/4 of available seats for the general public."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Low simmer seems like more of a rolling boil. I understand, but please keep it between the ditches.

I understand people are upset because of how wonderful Officer Leath was. I am not disputing this. I know the cultural reflex is to blame the defense for being "eeevil" or "slimy" or whatever. That did not happen, law enforcemen fought to keep the truth out and what LE fought to keep out was vital to the jury's decision to convict on the lesser included.

One's mental state is critical to criminal law and the jury took its role seriously as they usually do around opening statements. I fail to see how the defense's evidence of Dorsey's compromised mental health was not an issue here.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So this is how he gets all the money for those overly expensive H&K an Steyr firearms…..

I have never filed a motion to exclude an HK or Steyr.

 

[DragonGunner]

I don’t care if you got mental issues, or if you’re drunk, or anything else. You you won’t want me as a juror.

 

[BigMoose]

I have never filed a motion to exclude an HK or Steyr.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

View attachment 335647

This is cruel and unusual.

 

[phylodog]

We are to believe the "experts" as to his mental health? Why? Because they found someone with a piece of paper on their wall to call it their way and we're supposed to be satisfied with that?

There's apparently no shortage of doctors willing to mutilate the genitals off of and pump hormones into children so you'll have to forgive those of us no longer enamored with the splendor that was once recognized authority in this country as we see yet another example of a criminal getting away with murder.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don’t care if you got mental issues, or if you’re drunk, or anything else. You you won’t want me as a juror.

Anything else? Like self-defense? Self-defense is no matter? Still Murder?

There are many flavors of homicide and to quote a legal Chad (to use the nephews' phraseology), just because something bad happens does not make it a crime.

Not every life taking is Murder.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We are to believe the "experts" as to his mental health? Why? Because they found someone with a piece of paper on their wall to call it their way and we're supposed to be satisfied with that?

There's apparently no shortage of doctors willing to mutilate the genitals off of and pump hormones into children so you'll have to forgive those of us no longer enamored with the splendor that was once recognized authority in this country as we see yet another example of a criminal getting away with murder.

The jury is free to believe them, or disregard them. Just like the experts that the State of Indiana calls.

I do not know the doctors' position on transsexualism.

 

[phylodog]

The jury is free to believe them, or disregard them. Just like the experts that the State of Indiana calls.

I do not know the doctors' position on transsexualism.

I'd be fine with that if the truth were what the credentialed people in the room were interested in and were working diligently to be sure that's what the jurors were provided with. If that's what actually happened in courtrooms we'd have a few million fewer lawyers in the country.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'd be fine with that if the truth were what the credentialed people in the room were interested in and were working diligently to be sure that's what the jurors were provided with. If that's what actually happened in courtrooms we'd have a few million fewer lawyers in the country.

So you don't want Defendants represented so all Defendants would walk free when denied their rights?

Leath was a fantastic human being. A polestar for everyone to aspire to by everything I have read.

Her death does not negate the Constitutional rights of anyone. Law enforcement fought to keep the truth away from the jury, they failed, and the jury said that this was a crime, but not Murder.

 

[phylodog]

Law enforcement fought to keep a subjective opinion from being presented as fact. That’s where they failed though it’s difficult to fault them when all 73 cards in the “level and balanced” system are stacking against them.

She knocked on the door and he murdered her. That’s the facts.

 

[DragonGunner]

Anything else? Like self-defense? Self-defense is no matter? Still Murder?

There are many flavors of homicide and to quote a legal Chad (to use the nephews' phraseology), just because something bad happens does not make it a crime.

Not every life taking is Murder.

If you’re up for murder for murdering someone your mental illness or anything else won’t get you off in my book.

 

[Amishman44]

Is this the guy who also shot his unarmed, fleeing girlfriend in the back after killing the officer?

That's just horrible...sounds like a complete scumbag!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Looked at the CCS. It was the prosecution attempting to keep out evidence of Dorsey's mental health issues. Law enforcement fought to keep out the truth about Dorsey right up to the last minute (did not know Jes Paxson was in Marion Co. now, she was up here for a couple of years). Don't blame them it was the only way to obtain Murder otherwise it seemed, looking at the CCS only, it looked strong for Manslaughter or Reckless.

It was the prosecution that dismissed the death penalty (likely [don't know for certain] because of Dorsey's health).

"Your recent post about getting somebody off with a glock switch. Was it the truth that he was not factually guilty of a legal violation or were you able to keep the truth out of court based on convincing someone it was against the rules to know that truth?"

I think you mean the latter, but it was the truth that LPD made an unconstitutional stop based on race. But the Constitution is above all.

"Are defense attorneys under oath? If you know your client is guilty, can you say so since it's the truth?"

Duty to tell the truth and candor to tribunal, so yes. If my client is guilty, can I say? If in his best interest, yes, absolutely like with lesser included offense like Dorsey (Ray did a great job), self-defense (yes, the Defendant shot him but here's why) or possession vs. dealing in unlicensed pharmacy matters.

"I understand why the system is the way it is, especially given it's been layered on over and over into an increasingly byzantine system that supports the people who keep adding layers on to it, but it's not about the truth. Only idealists and lawyers would say something to ridiculously incongruent with reality."

Do not disagree. The goal is a constitutional trial. How that squares with one's mirovozzreniye is sometimes tough to do no matter how much one planes.

Wandering afield. Remember you said "This assumes one side has a monopoly on the truth." in response to "The only people who walk into an American courtroom expecting the truth to prevail are those walking through the doors for the first time."

My response is simply, no, you don't have to assume that to know the second part is true. I can realize neither side has a monopoly on the truth while recognizing that the truth is often excluded from the courtroom. I can also realize that while neither side has a monopoly, that does not mean that both sides are held to the same standard. I can also understand why the truth is excluded and that because the truth isn't the only thing that matters, prejudicial information would possibly sway a jury away from the truth. I can understand the why of constitutional limits to truthful information being considered. I simply take exception with the notion you have to think one side has a monopoly to recognize that. It's readily apparent to anyone spending any time in a courtroom that narrative building, keeping inconvenient truth out via suppression, etc. is a fundamental part of an American criminal courtroom and that 'the truth' is one sliver of the overall process.

Nobody trusts a jury to make a decision on the truth alone. If you did you wouldn't care if they knew about previous related convictions, since the truth is previous convictions don't have any relevance to the new charge, right? Not worry 'prejudicial' would sway them from that righteous truthful finding based on the truthiness of the truth, right? Right.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don’t care if you got mental issues, or if you’re drunk, or anything else. You you won’t want me as a juror.

Being drunk actually can't be considered, legally, if you were voluntarily intoxicated. If someone got you intoxicated against your will (say, slipped something in your drink without your knowledge) then it can be argued. I've seen lawyers try it, though.

 

[phylodog]

Being drunk actually can't be considered, legally, if you were voluntarily intoxicated. If someone got you intoxicated against your will (say, slipped something in your drink without your knowledge) then it can be argued. I've seen lawyers try it, though.

It can if it benefits the defense

Girlfriend who stabbed boyfriend 108 times in marijuana-induced episode smoked strain with more than 30% THC

Lawyers for the California woman who avoided prison time after stabbing her boyfriend 108 times in a marijuana-induced psychotic episode — killing him — stand behind their defense, insisting it was…

nypost.com

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It can if it benefits the defense

Girlfriend who stabbed boyfriend 108 times in marijuana-induced episode smoked strain with more than 30% THC

Lawyers for the California woman who avoided prison time after stabbing her boyfriend 108 times in a marijuana-induced psychotic episode — killing him — stand behind their defense, insisting it was…

nypost.com

I don't know the rules of evidence for NY, and should have clarified I was only speaking for Indiana.

That said, from the article, it looks like they did make the 'involuntary intoxication' argument based on: "noting that Spejcher did not know what she was getting herself into as O’Melia provided the pot but did not show her the warning on the label." I'm honestly not sure how that would fly here, voluntarily intoxicated but not voluntarily intoxicated to the point they actually were for whatever reason.

For funsies, you should post that in the legal weed thread, though, it can probably rock on for another 500 pages.

 

[phylodog]

It peters out then someone posts some new nonsense attributed to marijuana and it flares up for a few more pages. I thought about posting it there but didn’t want anyone to have a tizzy.