Jump to content

hookem17

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hookem17

  1. 29 minutes ago, Underdog said:

    Does TCU go with the Purple/white that often?  I like that look for KSU better than the purple/silver, it’s a good clean look. 

    Looks like they wore white-purple-white twice last year, along with a couple other combos that were just purple and white. They also did white-purple-white in their opener this year. 

    • Like 1
  2. 13 hours ago, Machinator said:

     

    These are nice, but the white-purple-white combo is already starting to look TCUish. Going to get confusing between those two if K-State transitions to a more modern look. 

  3. People clearly have a wide range of opinions about the appropriate length for Guyger’s sentence.  Part of the problem is that we all have different views on why we put people in prison. Some think we should lock up criminals for long enough to deter others from committing similar crimes. Others believe prison time is necessary due to the severity of the crime or moral wrongdoing.  Your belief as to what function incarceration serves will shape how you view the appropriateness of 10 years. 

  4. 3 minutes ago, smoothlonghorn said:

    If any of you experts happened to see/hear it, could the Prosecution bringing up "sudden passion" during sentencing closing be an issue? Sounds like it was in the charge, but Defense was upset because they did not mention it.

    Side note: Kudos and a thank you to all the contributors on this thread--lots of useful information the past few days...

    Not an expert, but the judge is correct that the State can argue sudden passion doesn’t apply since it is in the charge. A lot of commotion about something that didn’t matter. 

  5. Just now, TwiceHorn said:

    That would have been kind of awkward, as it would have been hearsay "Did Officer Guyger tell you that  . . . " to which there might have been exceptions, but still.

    Party opponent statements always get in (unless the rules are different in criminal). “Ms. Guyger admitted to you that she heard someone inside the apartment before she entered, corrrect?” Seems straightforward, but that’s why I don’t practice criminal law. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, AggieFactFinder said:

    I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

    I wondered this too. But why wouldn’t the state have introduced that evidence during its case?

  7. 3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Question:  did she admit to hearing someone inside "her" apartment on her own volition, or was she asked if she heard someone by the prosecution?  (Sorry, I didn't follow the trial.  I'm fascinated by such an admission, though, and like others have posted before, it seems like this would be the kind of thing her attorneys would have prepped her for.)

    I may be misremembering, but I believe she offered up the testimony about hearing someone inside on direct. 

×
×
  • Create New...