Jump to content

4th and 5

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 4th and 5

  1. On 9/24/2019 at 2:51 PM, Spaulding Smails said:

    Took my wife wade fishing for her first time every with a guide in South Padre this past weekend.  She enjoys fishing, but we haven't had much time in recent years for that due to kids, jobs, career changes, etc.  Finally getting to a point where we can get out some.  This trip was going to go one of two ways:

    A) Shitty guide or shitty weather or no fish which would lead to a major setback in the progression of events to buy a house at the coast and a boat.

    OR

    B) Good guide, good weather and decent fishing which would lead to a major step forward in the progression of events to buy a house at the coast and a boat.

    Luckily, we got option B.  Great guide (Ernest Cisneros).  Very attentive and patient with her.  Took her under his wing.  Just a really enjoyable experience with him.  Wind was blowing, but weather was good.  Didn't hammer the fish, but the bite was consistent.  We got back and she was stoked.  Called her mom, texted our son pictures of her fish.  She was on Cloud 9.  She left her phone out while she was in the shower, and I saw "Bay Boat" and "Rockport House For Sale" in her search history.  That's a good sign.  

    I missed a decent trout right at dawn on a topwater.  Lots of reds just below the slot for me.  I didn't care, though.  I was just enjoying the solitude and watching my wife enjoy her day.  We ended up with five keeper trout and two keeper reds.  Great trip and should be the start of something pretty cool.  

    Cool. I have my own boat down there but I use Ernest occasionally. He is a good guide and very patient with inexperienced fishermen. He is all about the fishing experience, not boxing 16 inch trout on croaker. 

    How did you like his new 25 foot Majek Illusion?

  2. Lots of the science excluded......because she already testified to it, or failed to testify to it because her lawyers didn't elicit that testimony.

    Brilliant.

    You do it the other way. The jury has to understand why she testifies so poorly before she does it. Why she makes bad decisions. Why she doesn't see, hear or smell. This is all supported by decades of science

    All this stuff comes in if experts go first. Is she going to testify? Gee, judge we don't know, we will let you know when and if she decides to do so.

    The state objects to everything, the defense just lets everything in. These guys are fucking useless.

    Why is how she acted after the shooting (which makes the jury hate her guts) relevant to prove her state of mind, and the reasonableness of deadly force, at the exact moment of the shooting?

    You don't let the state Monday morning quarterback your self defense case. It's self defense 101!

    Why did they elicit testimony that she wants to be a cop to help people, that opens the door to evidence from the state that she does in fact NOT want to help people, by not helping Mr. Jean.

    Goddamn they fucked up a lot of stuff in just one day. 

  3. 5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

    Especially weird since she was sitting there when that testimony occurred, not like she was excluded under The Rule.

     

    Question for 4th and 5 and the other lawdogs - any chance they could look for a "sudden passion" reduction to 2nd degree? Looking at the plain language, it says it only applies if there was provocation from victim or someone with victim. Can that include "perceived" provocation?

    I think you get the adequate cause (terror) but not the sudden passion element, so no, I don't think it will apply. The perceived provocation is an interesting theory.

    Could it be included in the charge? possibly, because if there is any evidence whatsoever to support it, and the judge refuses to put it in the charge, it is reversible error

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...