TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

suthdj wrote:Did anyone else catch the part where Bao said "Real self defense case" in regards to the 10 minute guy?

Yeah, I caught that. Surprised it didn't come up.

The look on GZ's lawyer's face said it all.

Up to this point, I have perceived the trial to be quite interesting, even fascinating at times, but Bao has now added "entertaining" to the equation. "Nobody can remember things from two years ago." What a piece of work this guy is.

Pacifist wrote:Up to this point, I have perceived the trial to be quite interesting, even fascinating at times, but Bao has now added "entertaining" to the equation. "Nobody can remember things from two years ago." What a piece of work this guy is.

I thought Jenteel was pretty entertaining, too!

We're fixin' to see just how biased she is.

Dragonfighter wrote:We're fixin' to see just how biased she is.

Fantastic logic and reasoning in this motion for judgment of acquittal by O'Mara.

Shoot to stop the attack, not to kill...
It isn't depraved to stop an attack.

sjfcontrol wrote:Shoot to stop the attack, not to kill...
It isn't depraved to stop an attack.

Now, why cloud the issue with facts when inflammatory rhetoric serves so much better.

He WAS on drugs!!!

Yeah, I'm sure the jury will consider that...oh wait.

Added in Edit: This guy belongs to the genus Equus asinus

Motion of acquittal denied -- big surprise.

Saw the denial coming.

What kind of "house" division? Can't possibly be what I heard.

esxmarkc wrote:

Judge just said the prosecution plans to rest today, and start the defense on Friday.

Maybe I'm biased but from what I have seen of the prosecution's performance the defense could just stand up Friday morning and say "Your honor, the defense rests." for the win.

After GZ's school records were admitted as character evidence, I would like to see a request to get TM's school disciplinary records entered into evidence on the same grounds. Either the defense gets to contrast "wannabe cop" with "wannabe gang member" or there's an extra helping of proof of judicial misconduct.

However, I think you're right that the prosecution witnesses have already introduced enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury, as long as there's no jury intimidation or other tampering.

CSM Meza, totally credible.