Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "" video.

That's certainly possible, it's also possible that he's genuinely innocent, that too much of the evidence will have to be excluded due to misconduct and sloppy handling or the jury will decide to be super strict about how much they expect for a particular charge to be proven. I think it's pretty much a given that he's not going to get a death sentence here. That's massive overreach considering what he is accused of doing and what the normal sentences for killing one person is. I think that with all the mass shooters and serial killers in various prisons for life without death sentences that it's going to be hard to get a jury on board with that, no matter how much evidence there might be.
21
Screwing up the evidence collection and initial contact is going to make it a lot harder for them to successfully prosecute and I don't think that they did themselves any favors in terms of so quickly deciding that this needed to be a capital case. Having a gun is one thing, it being the same gun is another and yet another is being able to prove that he had the gun on purpose rather than it being planted by law enforcement after the fact. Part of why OJ beat the murder charges in '94 was that some of the evidence was very clearly planted by police. The infamous bloody socks that were somehow soaked through from one side to the other were pretty clearly not worn while committing the murders.
14
There's a decent chance that not all of the people in those pictures are the same person, which if that's the case, would help the defense out a lot. As did the mishandling of all that evidence.
7
@TissuDemon There is a small part of me that wonders how much of that incompetence is just a lack of care because on some level the cops are just as angry about the health care situation as the rest of us are. Or, it could just be a byproduct of police departments being allowed to not hire the best and brightest or worry that much about standards due to qualified immunity.
6
It is, it's not something that juries are supposed to do. It's a power that juries have as a byproduct of prohibitions on double jeopardy and that the deliberations are secret. The only thing that's publicly known if jurors keep their mouths shut is how each juror voted on the charges.
3
It's not in and of itself cause to dismiss the case. At most, anything that comes of failing to notify him of his rights would be suppressed. Any evidence unrelated to that would still be fair to include in the case.
3
@ I've seen experts suggest that much of the stuff that was alleged to be with him won't be admissible due to them not being able to require him to identify himself early on and that much of it may not be permissible due to being obtained improperly. We'll have to see, but it sounds like he has good attorneys.
2
Possibly, or they could do like the jury did for Getz decades ago and acquit on the most serious charges and then just convict on a couple minor charges. In that case, he was guilty, they just nullified that charge. In this case, it's somewhat less clear as to whether or not Luigi was in fact the shooter. I think he probably is, but there's a pretty significant amount of room for error on the identification due to how that was handled.
1