IMPD OFFICER LEATH MURDER TRIAL

[bgcatty]

The jury in the trial returned a verdict of guilty but mentally impaired to a lesser charge of homicide but not murder. I didn’t attend the trial or hear the evidence. The defense sold that mentally ill BS to the jury and they bought it. I just find it amazing that a jury would not convict on the murder charge given that this young officer lost her life at the hands of a thug while protecting the people of Indy. What message does that send to the criminals who don’t respect the law or human life or the dedicated police?

 

[phylodog]

What message does that send to the criminals who don’t respect the law or human life or the dedicated police?

The same message the left has been disseminating for years. Criminals are victims and cops are the bad guys. If you really want to get your blood boiling, sit in on a trial like this one and see just how blatantly, unbelievable slanted the system is in favor of the criminals. I get that people deserve every conceivable legitimate defense approach but it goes far beyond ridiculous in many instances.

As a hypothetical, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that the suspect in this case was allowed to have a poster of his children (you know, the real victims if this murderer goes to prison) sitting on the desk facing the jury with the message "please don't take away our daddy" on it throughout the entire trial while simultaneously banning any images of the murdered officer's children from being shown in the courtroom. That's the kind of ridiculous BS that goes on.

 

[bgcatty]

I’ve been a part of numerous jury trials. What must enter jurors minds to screw up the outcome of a trial never ceased to amaze and oftentimes frustrate me.
I know I may not be politically correct but the jury in this trial definitely swallowed the mentally ill BS and thereby drank the wrong Kool Aid.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I’ve been a part of numerous jury trials. What must enter jurors minds to screw up the outcome of a trial never ceased to amaze and oftentimes frustrate me.
I know I may not be politically correct but the jury in this trial definitely swallowed the mentally ill BS and thereby drank the wrong Kool Aid.

Actually this sentence is what the prosecution wanted. The defense wanted "not guilty by reason of insanity."

 

[Twangbanger]

The same message the left has been disseminating for years. Criminals are victims and cops are the bad guys. If you really want to get your blood boiling, sit in on a trial like this one and see just how blatantly, unbelievable slanted the system is in favor of the criminals. I get that people deserve every conceivable legitimate defense approach but it goes far beyond ridiculous in many instances.

As a hypothetical, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that the suspect in this case was allowed to have a poster of his children (you know, the real victims if this murderer goes to prison) sitting on the desk facing the jury with the message "please don't take away our daddy" on it throughout the entire trial while simultaneously banning any images of the murdered officer's children from being shown in the courtroom. That's the kind of ridiculous BS that goes on.

I was on a murder / felonious assault jury where the defense made a high-profile spectacle of pointing out the murderer's wife and children sitting in the spectator seats.

Back in the jury room, the female jurors were all twittering about it at the next break. "What's she going to do if he gets sent away?"

The enemy, really, is "us." The AHs in the system know how to use "us" against "us."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Actually this sentence is what the prosecution wanted. The defense wanted "not guilty by reason of insanity."

No, it isn't. MCPO definitely pursued, and argued for, Murder.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No, it isn't. MCPO definitely pursued, and argued for, Murder.

Well I thought they had at first, but WTHR kept repeating over and over that this was the outcome they wanted. Maybe they meant that was the best they were going to get?

Edit: Now I see they wanted guilty of murder but insane rather than reckless homicide but insane. My misunderstanding.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The jury in the trial returned a verdict of guilty but mentally impaired to a lesser charge of homicide but not murder. I didn’t attend the trial or hear the evidence. The defense sold that mentally ill BS to the jury and they bought it. I just find it amazing that a jury would not convict on the murder charge given that this young officer lost her life at the hands of a thug while protecting the people of Indy. What message does that send to the criminals who don’t respect the law or human life or the dedicated police?

Maybe, just maybe, the 12 who listened to the evidence all thought that it was not Murder but something else? There are many variants of homicide. A jury, who was there, who listened to the evidence that it was not intentional homicide. Is this not how it is to work?

Just because someone files something in court does not make it true. If so I am filing that you all owe me $50 on Monday.

 

[Trapper Jim]

True justice is expensive and then not guaranteed.

 

[Denny347]

True justice is expensive and then not guaranteed.

Is "Justice" the outcome or the process? Without evidence of impropriety, I find no reason to believe Justice wasn't served here. The process was allowed to run its course. I might not like the verdict, but "justice" was served. Human people decided the fate of another human. With all the failings that come with being a human, I'm not sure we could have hoped for better.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No, it isn't. MCPO definitely pursued, and argued for, Murder.

Blaming Prosecutors is all the rage, and merited in any case I am involved in, but I am with BBIs. They did their constitutional function. The jury performed theirs. Why are people upset? Seemingly everyone did their duty.

Officer Leath was an extraordinary wonderful police officer and human being. The very person needed to be a police officer.

Perhaps people are upset as her star shined so brightly? I don't know, but I know 99% of the people who kick and scream at being on a jury, somewhere around opening statements they take the job very seriously. I give their decision a rebuttal presumption of doing the right thing.

 

[Ark]

Is this the guy who also shot his unarmed, fleeing girlfriend in the back after killing the officer?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Is this the guy who also shot his unarmed, fleeing girlfriend in the back after killing the officer?

Yes.

 

[phylodog]

Just because someone files something in court does not make it true.

The only people who walk into an American courtroom expecting the truth to prevail are those walking through the doors for the first time.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The only people who walk into an American courtroom expecting the truth to prevail are those walking through the doors for the first time.

This assumes one side has a monopoly on the truth.

What if the prosecution is mostly right but not entirely right? Well, then we allow the finder of the fact to meet them at that point.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This assumes one side has a monopoly on the truth.

No it doesn't. Anyone who's been in a courtroom knows that attempting to keep information *out*, regardless of the truth of it, is part of the game. It's why jurors can't ask questions without them being approved first.

Your recent post about getting somebody off with a glock switch. Was it the truth that he was not factually guilty of a legal violation or were you able to keep the truth out of court based on convincing someone it was against the rules to know that truth?

Are defense attorneys under oath? If you know your client is guilty, can you say so since it's the truth?

I understand why the system is the way it is, especially given it's been layered on over and over into an increasingly byzantine system that supports the people who keep adding layers on to it, but it's not about the truth. Only idealists and lawyers would say something to ridiculously incongruent with reality.

 

[BigMoose]

Just because someone files something in court does not make it true. If so I am filing that you all owe me $50 on Monday.

So this is how he gets all the money for those overly expensive H&K an Steyr firearms…..

 

[KellyinAvon]

Low simmer seems like more of a rolling boil. I understand, but please keep it between the ditches.

 

[BigMoose]

Low simmer seems like more of a rolling boil. I understand, but please keep it between the ditches.

 

[firecadet613]

I've been saying for years the "justice system" is a farce. This doesn't change my opinion.

Isn't this the case where they stopped letting officers in uniform from sitting in the gallery?