He is a good attorney and has the perry mason vibe. Dick will have the showmanship and “gotcha” moment, if one is to be found. Jim Griffin is a Lawyer and one of the best in the country. He flies under the radar but I have a feeling he will work the experts pretty hard. He has a great reputation for criminal and more specifically white collar criminal defense across the bar.
⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
Part of the schtick. He is going to have to be an ass at some point in the trial and wants the perception that was presented today
Yeah that makes sense after he ended his statement asking the jury to blame him and not Alex if and when he pisses them off
John Meadors will likely take a good bit of the testimony. He had tried a ton of murder cases and I believe some capital cases. He is damn good
The judge will instruct them on the legal definition of a reasonable doubt.
Here is how some courts define it:
Under the law, the accused is presumed to be innocent of the offense(s). The government has the burden of proving the accused’s guilt by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
1) A “reasonable doubt” is an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must exclude every fair and reasonable hypothesis of the evidence except that of guilt.
2) A “reasonable doubt” is a conscientious doubt, based upon reason and common sense, and arising from the state of the evidence. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, or as members of an administrative board, where you were told that it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the government's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the accused's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, you must find (him) (her) guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that the accused is not guilty, you must give (him) (her) the benefit of the doubt and find (him) (her) not guilty.
3) By “reasonable doubt” is intended not a fanciful, speculative, or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest and actual doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is a genuine misgiving caused by insufficiency of proof of guilt. Reasonable doubt is a fair and rational doubt based upon reason and common sense and arising from the state of the evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the accused's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt.
No. SC only allows venue change within the circuit. No way the state wanted to go to Hampton and Barnwell likely not much better. More population to chose from and defense likely had no basis to get it in Hampton
LOL at all these people deciding guilt or innocence after the opening statements.
Shelling Out Evidence: NIST Ballistic Standard Helps Tie Guns to Criminals
Thanks to a new reference standard developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), law enforcement agencies will have an easier time
There’s evidence that he didn’t do this (or wasn’t there when it happened)? I haven’t been watching…..but I haven’t seen anybody mention evidence that is exculpatory…..just theories. Just curious.
The amount of trials, civil and criminal, decided just after openings is pretty substantial. It is by far the most important part of a trial in many cases. It’s not how it should be, but a lot of research shows that’s how it is.
From what we know, he had 12 minutes to kill both of them, get to the house and get rid of clothes/guns, change, cleanup and leave to see his mom. Then he returned an hour later.
Lawyers make everything so damn complicated. It just means a tie goes to the runner…
I don’t think it’s a solid argument because the 12 mins is until he called the wife to say he was leaving. At least that’s how it was described today. Unless there’s video evidence of him leaving
Mom wanted to watch it live on tv today and I fully expected cable news to carry it live. Wrong.
If there is snow on the ground and you didn't see it snow doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
SC has involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter and murder. There are no degrees in murder in SC. A jury can find for a lesser included. A jury can find for manslaughter in this case but only after a judge has found that evidence has been presented which a jury can find “sudden heat of passion” upon “sufficient legal provocation”.
Basically there was no malice aforethought. We dont know all the facts as we are only at opening, but if that evidence of passion and provocation are presented, then a jury could find him guilty if that. I doubt that even becomes a possibility when the defense seems to be the Shaggy Defense. It wasnt me. Usually the defense is the one wanting lesser included instructions from the judge.
Hard to use the financial crimes, but can they say “financial desperation” by using the details from Russell’s trial?
What does “cell phone locked forever “ mean?
I assume that indicates the time they were allegedly shot?
But how would the cell phone know and/or indicate that?
I assume that indicates the time they were allegedly shot?
But how would the cell phone know and/or indicate that?
Since they have the cell phones, they can tell when the cell phone was last used and when it went into its locked screen and not used again.
You can assume that they were shot after last lock
So, could the jury find that he killed one and not the other or are the two tied together?
There is a separate murder charge for each victim so that is possible. That being said, I don’t think there is any evidence supporting a theory that Alex only killed one and not the other
Yes. They have him on video from Paul’s phone there within 3 minutes of when they think the murders happened
What will Alex’s defense be? That he was at the house and didn’t see or hear anything? Or is Poot just going to try and confuse the jurors?
The State has a lot to clean up that could create reasonable doubt.
Where are the guns.
Where are the clothes he was wearing.
Explain two different guns and why
State seemed to allege Paul shot first. Why?
Why did LE quickly say community was safe? Did LE zero in on AM to exclusion of others too fast?
State doesn’t have to prove motive but it’s important in a family crime and looks like the finance stuff/prior bad acts will be hard to get in
In addition to other things.
This is no slam dunk case.
Agree. I’d also add how will they explain how Maggie’s phone made its way 0.5 mile down the road in the short timeline.
And if you were going to ditch her phone, why didn't you ditch Paul's too?
They have to knit all the circumstantial evidence together and clear up the questions and inconsistencies.
I think this is hard. And to the point of the openings, the prosecution usually wants to start slow, build momentum and finish strong, win at close. The Defense wants to set the bar as high as they possibly can in the beginning and usually is stronger at open. Reality - if the prosecution had what would have been a kick ass open and shut opening statement, the case would probably have already plead out.
It seems implausible he was walking around with both guns and that isn't alarming his wife or son. Also regardless of how cold blooded one is, how could he have pulled off all of that within 15 min window.
Its got nothing on the penny stock thread. That thing is insane.
They suggested that there were guns already at the kennels. Said they had guns all around the property. And, in the past, Alex had bought both of the types of guns that were used. - Mrs. Shove
No, sorry. What Im saying is it seems to be a counter to every pc of evidence saying he did it. It's as if you could make the same argument, he didn't do it, per se.
IMHO after hearing yesterday....
Is this what makes it so hard to prosecute, there's multiple definitions and not all courts, much less people agree?
What' s your thoughts? What's the difference between (in your opinion) Beyond reasonable doubt and beyond all doubt? This part has me fascinated, honestly.
