Man that's tough. I wish he testified so we'd at least have his side of the story :uhoh:
I'm sure it will be repealed.
Does you means appealed?
Beat me to the draw hazek
Last edited:
Man that's tough. I wish he testified so we'd at least have his side of the story :uhoh:
I'm sure it will be repealed.
You mean appealed?
I'm sure it will be appealed.
For the benefit of anyone who is paying attention... THIS is a strawman argument...Oh that's right, I forgot you are the kind of person who believes you should wait until 2 people are beating you mercilessly before you actually pull your gun.
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of assault?
Assault:
A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened.
Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.Compare battery.
Man that's tough. I wish he testified so we'd at least have his side of the story :uhoh:
He must have either had a lousy Lawyer representing him or could not afford a qualified defense Lawyer...
What makes you say that? Have anything to back up the lousy lawyer idea?
More likely IMHO, the verdict was one they planned for. They can now appeal the lesser charge which is a whole lot better than appealing a conviction on 1st degree.
Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that he testifies at the appeal. They may have thought that testifying at this trial would have done more harm than good. Who knows.
Does anyone out there with legal experience know; if someone did not testify in their own defense, is an appeal to do so more likely to be granted? If so, my hypothetical strategy makes even more sense.
I'm just thinking out loud over here.
What makes you say that? Have anything to back up the lousy lawyer idea?
More likely IMHO, the verdict was one they planned for. They can now appeal the lesser charge which is a whole lot better than appealing a conviction on 1st degree.
Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that he testifies at the appeal. They may have thought that testifying at this trial would have done more harm than good. Who knows.
Does anyone out there with legal experience know; if someone did not testify in their own defense, is an appeal to do so more likely to be granted? If so, my hypothetical strategy makes even more sense.
I'm just thinking out loud over here.
I agree that's a possibility on the planning for the lesser charge to be appealed but it's always best to go for total acquittal. Wouldn't want to play that game with my life.
I'm not aware of an appeal being anything more than the court looking at the record of the first trial for errors of the court in properly applying procedure, rules of evidence, etc. If you didn't testify at trial, I don't think any jurisdiction allows you to do so at appeal. Rhe purpose of the appeal process isn't to give you another chance to make your case, only to make the case that you were improperly convicted based on the prosecutions evidence, and your defense.
I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding. Any legal beagles that can clarify or correct me?
I agree that's a possibility on the planning for the lesser charge to be appealed but it's always best to go for total acquittal. Wouldn't want to play that game with my life.
I'm not aware of an appeal being anything more than the court looking at the record of the first trial for errors of the court in properly applying procedure, rules of evidence, etc. If you didn't testify at trial, I don't think any jurisdiction allows you to do so at appeal. Rhe purpose of the appeal process isn't to give you another chance to make your case, only to make the case that you were improperly convicted based on the prosecutions evidence, and your defense.
I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding. Any legal beagles that can clarify or correct me?
Something suspicious about this whole trial. Jesus was one of the pioneers of open carry. He was one of the first to take on a major establishment over his constitutional right to open carry a firearm for personal protection. A case that he won. He is very knowledgable on Wisconsin firearm laws and the risk of using deadly force. He is also aware that any felony conviction prevents him from even touching a firerm, possibly for life. It is hard for me to believe he would just sit and silently accept his fate, even on advice of his lawyer and especially if there was no pre-trial plea bargain. I'm not good at the new math but to me something about this whole trial doesn't add up.