It was the wrong thread

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

wanksta'?

As I read the story, the lyrics were offered as evidence of the shooter's state of mind, not as proof of the fact that the victim had a gun and intended to use it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Did the Hearsay Rule and the Character Evidence Rule both go off the rails when I wasn't looking?

Slain rapper's lyrics used in shooter's defense in murder trial.

You're seriously asking this? The defense was self-defense. He needed to prove that he had an honest and reasonable belief that he was threatened (I can't remember the exact wording of the nature of the threat involved).

An honest but unreasonable belief would also help in reducing the charge, but is not a complete defense.

You don't believe that the evidence that the victim yelled out a gang name to the defendant, and had gang affiliations that the defendant learned about, including a gangsta rap song that the defendant listened to, is relevant? It's not hearsay or "character evidence," it's evidence of the defendant's state of mind and whether his fear was honest and/or reasonable. From a glance at the article, it seems like it was admitted only because the defendant actually saw it (and it shouldn't have been if he hadn't).

More to the point -- who are you and what have you done with the real Atticus?

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

As I read the story, the lyrics were offered as evidence of the shooter's state of mind, not as proof of the fact that the victim had a gun and intended to use it.

The "wanksta'" reference was to the victim's faux-gangsta-ness. But. thanks for playing!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You're seriously asking this? The defense was self-defense. He needed to prove that he had an honest and reasonable belief that he was threatened (I can't remember the exact wording of the nature of the threat involved).

An honest but unreasonable belief would also help in reducing the charge, but is not a complete defense.

You don't believe that the evidence that the victim yelled out a gang name to the defendant, and had gang affiliations that the defendant learned about, including a gangsta rap song that the defendant listened to, is relevant? It's not hearsay or "character evidence," it's evidence of the defendant's state of mind and whether his fear was honest and/or reasonable. From a glance at the article, it seems like it was admitted only because the defendant actually saw it (and it shouldn't have been if he hadn't).

More to the point -- who are you and what have you done with the real Atticus?

Hearsay evidence isn't being offered for the truth when it's offered to prove the state of mind of the declarant. Was there evidence the defendant had heard the lyrics and believed them to be true?

When I'm a judge I'm excluding this. Also, other fiction written by the murder victim, and their library records that might show they had an interest in violence.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

The "wanksta'" reference was to the victim's faux-gangsta-ness. But. thanks for playing!

I was wondering about that. I don't generally hold myself out as an authority on evidence. Of course, I had an opinion, so I thought I'd throw it out there. Just another asshole lawyer with an opinion.

So blow me for America.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Was there evidence the defendant had heard the lyrics and believed them to be true?

From the article you linked:

In the packed club, Berry said, he bumped a woman's drink, leading to a confrontation with a group of men who beat and kicked him as he lay on the floor. Among them, he testified, was Burton, who he said chanted the name of a Los Angeles street gang, the Mansfield Crips, after the assault.

Later, Berry testified, he went online to conduct research into Burton and the Mansfield Crips.

Berry said he saw photos of the rapper throwing gang signs. He listened to Burton's music and saw an Internet video in which the rapper bragged about breaking another man's jaw.

"I had a personal experience with the things they're bragging about," Berry told jurors. "They're not just talking about these things. They're doing it."

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I

So blow me for America.

You should ask the Defendant in the case-it would give him a head-start, npi, of what he is probably going to be doing a lot when he hits the stir.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

You should ask the Defendant in the case-it would give him a head-start, npi, of what he is probably going to be doing a lot when he hits the stir.

But how do I know he'll have your technique and true love for the game?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Yes, he can.

S_A_M

don't they need to be somewhat related in time? or can I shoot Sidd the moment I'm finally introduced?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

From the article you linked:

Okay, thanks, reading things on an iPhone caused me to miss that. But if he testified or argued the last thing ("they're doing them"), isn't that a mistrial? If the lyrics are offered for a non-truth purpose to show the reasonableness of the listener's state of mind (a theory of relevance that remains dubious to me) why in the hell is the defendant allowed to argue truth? All of this shows why it's way more prejudicial than probative -- it's admissible to show my state of mind, says the defendant, but now that I've got it in I'm allowed to run with it for a truth purpose and as character evidence? I. Don't. Think. So. Counsellor.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Hearsay evidence isn't being offered for the truth when it's offered to prove the state of mind of the declarant. Was there evidence the defendant had heard the lyrics and believed them to be true?

It's not hearsay if it's being offered to prove the state of mind of the defendant (not the declarant).

There was evidence that the defendant had heard the lyrics. I don't know what the lyrics were -- whether they were just about the victim's gang sympathies and affiliation, or whether he was boasting about things he'd supposedly done. If the former, then yes, there was evidence the defendant believed them to be true. If the latter, I'm not sure, but expect there was at least evidence that the defendant took this as an indication that the victim was inclined towards violence.

When I'm a judge I'm excluding this. Also, other fiction written by the murder victim, and their library records that might show they had an interest in violence.

Okay. And if the defendant was black and the victim was white, and they bumped into each other at a bar and the victim yelled "get away from me nigger", and then the defendant found a video of the victim in a Klan outfit singing his recent song, "god bless the KKK," I assume you'd exclude that too. And I'd have thanked you for the appellate issue, back when I did criminal appeals.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Okay, thanks, reading things on an iPhone caused me to miss that. But if he testified or argued the last thing ("they're doing them"), isn't that a mistrial? If the lyrics are offered for a non-truth purpose to show the reasonableness of the listener's state of mind (a theory of relevance that remains dubious to me) why in the hell is the defendant allowed to argue truth? All of this shows why it's way more prejudicial than probative -- it's admissible to show my state of mind, says the defendant, but now that I've got it in I'm allowed to run with it for a truth purpose and as character evidence? I. Don't. Think. So. Counsellor.

Right. Because when the defense is "I honestly believed that this person was a threat to me," then whether the defendant watched the guy singing about being a Crip and breaking someone's jaw for fun, or whether the defendant watched the guy reciting Little Bo' Peep to a class of first-graders, is really irrelevant and utterly non-probative.

As is the defendant's own experience with gang members.

"Q. Sir, you are claiming that you acted in self defense. Did you think this person was going to attack you?"

"A. Yes."

"Q. Why?"

"Pros.: Objection, Your Honor!!! More prejudical than probative!"

"Judge Atticus: Sustained."


Overuse. Of. Periods. Is. Not. Convincing.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Right. Because when the defense is "I honestly believed that this person was a threat to me," then whether the defendant watched the guy singing about being a Crip and breaking someone's jaw for fun, or whether the defendant watched the guy reciting Little Bo' Peep to a class of first-graders, is really irrelevant and utterly non-probative.

As is the defendant's own experience with gang members.

"Q. Sir, you are claiming that you acted in self defense. Did you think this person was going to attack you?"

"A. Yes."

"Q. Why?"

"Pros.: Objection, Your Honor!!! More prejudical than probative!"

"Judge Atticus: Sustained."


Overuse. Of. Periods. Is. Not. Convincing.

Q. "And you thought he posed a threat to you, such that responding with deadly force made sense to you?"

A. "Absolutely."

Q. "Why?"

A. "I had once searched ASCAP licenses, and discovered that he wrote 'Hey Joe' and had recorded a cover of 'I Shot The Sheriff.'"

Pros.: "Move to strike."

Judge Finch: [Fill in the blank.]

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Q. "And you thought he posed a threat to you, such that responding with deadly force made sense to you?"

A. "Absolutely."

Q. "Why?"

A. "I had once searched ASCAP licenses, and discovered that he wrote 'Hey Joe' and had recorded a cover of 'I Shot The Sheriff.'"

Pros.: "Move to strike."

Judge Finch: [Fill in the blank.]

This post is really helpful. I'd forgotten that when the defendant says "I saw a video of him doing a gangster rap", you understood that to mean that the victim had the role of Big Julie in Guys and Dolls.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This post is really helpful. I'd forgotten that when the defendant says "I saw a video of him doing a gangster rap", you understood that to mean that the victim had the role of Big Julie in Guys and Dolls.

Can I get a ruling? And this time I mean that literally. You established your reductio ad absurdem, now I have a right to establish mine. You agree that you'd exclude songwriting credits, right? So now we'll see how far the line must move before the artist's bragadoccio is seen as a statement of truth. I'm guessing your line stops at Will Smith, while I go all the way up to Wu Tang.