Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
There are specific judicial reasons for Appeals Courts to grant new trials....and the history of the "victim" does not meet those standards.
Did the judge act improperly?
Was material evidence improperly withheld by the prosecution?
|
What are the specific standards and how do you know they were or were not met? The case must also be properly categorized for the determination of correct standards to apply.
The judge may have been prejudiced and it's not uncommon to allow appeals for much less controversial outcomes. I believe the prosecutor (Sutton) has knowingly withheld critical information. The conditions under which the case was brought were (IMO) also very questionable. The "victim" was a known drug runner and violent gang member. The violent history of the drug runner should be included regarding how border agents might respond in potentially violent confrontational situations. The evidence, shell casings, etc. were addressed by their superior and was provided to the FBI in deposition, but not allowed as evidence. Their were contradictory eyewitness accounts of the events, several Mexicans sided with the drug runner. Again, all deposed statements were not considered.
I will locate this info and share for your consideration as soon as I can. It shouldn't be too hard to dig up.