- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:08 pm to JudgeHolden
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:08 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
Art. 404. Character evidence generally not admissible in civil or criminal trial to prove conduct; exceptions; other criminal acts
A. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character, such as a moral quality, offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the character evidence; provided that such evidence shall be restricted to showing those moral qualities pertinent to the crime with which he is charged, and that character evidence cannot destroy conclusive evidence of guilt.
(2) Character of victim. (a) Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character, such as a moral quality, of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the character evidence; provided that in the absence of evidence of a hostile demonstration or an overt act on the part of the victim at the time of the offense charged, evidence of his dangerous character is not admissible; provided further that when the accused pleads self-defense and there is a history of assaultive behavior between the victim and the accused and the accused lived in a familial or intimate relationship such as, but not limited to, the husband-wife, parent-child, or concubinage relationship, it shall not be necessary to first show a hostile demonstration or overt act on the part of the victim in order to introduce evidence of the dangerous character of the victim, including specific instances of conduct and domestic violence; and further provided that an expert's opinion as to the effects of the prior assaultive acts on the accused's state of mind is admissible; or
(b) Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
(3) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Articles 607, 608, and 609.
B. Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. (1) Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes, or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.
(2) In the absence of evidence of a hostile demonstration or an overt act on the part of the victim at the time of the offense charged, evidence of the victim's prior threats against the accused or the accused's state of mind as to the victim's dangerous character is not admissible; provided that when the accused pleads self-defense and there is a history of assaultive behavior between the victim and the accused and the accused lived in a familial or intimate relationship such as, but not limited to, the husband-wife, parent-child, or concubinage relationship, it shall not be necessary to first show a hostile demonstration or overt act on the part of the victim in order to introduce evidence of the dangerous character of the victim, including specific instances of conduct and domestic violence; and further provided that an expert's opinion as to the effects of the prior assaultive acts on the accused's state of mind is admissible.
Given the subjective standard in the cases you provided with the objective BAC and seemingly contradictory video evidence, I’m pushing hard for it to come in if I’m the defense. It’s key mitigation evidence IMO.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:11 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
the question is who to put behind bars.
Answer : every fricking one of the occupants of that car that is still alive.
For a very long time.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:12 pm to inspectweld
We all know that if JPLSU was there in the car, he would have taken his turn with Madison and he just wouldn't want to be convicted as a rapist and go to prison for it. Obviously, according to his post, he would have done the same thing that Kaivon and Desmond did under similar circumstances
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:14 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
________________________________________
That statement came from a news article a while back stating the BAC was 4 time the limit of consent.
________________________________________
It’s four times the limit to drive. There is no set standard for consent.
____________________________________________________________
I will try and find that article again but it did say about 4 times the limit for consent. I`m thinking the DA must have a limit on BAC that they are willing to prosecute above that level in this situation.
It may not be written in law with the state but their experts tell them what they consider the limit of consent to be.
Regardless we all can agree anywhere near a BAC .319 a person is not sober enough for consent
________________________________________
That statement came from a news article a while back stating the BAC was 4 time the limit of consent.
________________________________________
It’s four times the limit to drive. There is no set standard for consent.
____________________________________________________________
I will try and find that article again but it did say about 4 times the limit for consent. I`m thinking the DA must have a limit on BAC that they are willing to prosecute above that level in this situation.
It may not be written in law with the state but their experts tell them what they consider the limit of consent to be.
Regardless we all can agree anywhere near a BAC .319 a person is not sober enough for consent
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:14 pm to clip11
quote:
We all know that if JPLSU was there in the car, he would have taken his turn with Madison
Those that know JPLSU - know for a fact -he definitely wouldn’t have taken his turn on Madison,, and actually would have walked with Madison to Whataburger.
He would have been hitting on the driver, as Madison was apparently doing.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:14 pm to boosiebadazz
But that could work the other way as well. If character comes into this and it's shown that Madison typically didn't have sex with strangers and she only had sex with one or 2 guys that she knew really well, that could bite the defense in the arse.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:17 pm to clip11
Her prior sexual activity isn’t coming in. That’s black letter law. Automatic grounds for appeal.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:19 pm to boosiebadazz
I was replying to when you said that if you were the defense you would push for it to come in.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:20 pm to clip11
Her prior drinking activity is what I was talking about
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:20 pm to clip11
quote:
We all know that if JPLSU was there in the car, he would have taken his turn with Madison and he just wouldn't want to be convicted as a rapist and go to prison for it. Obviously, according to his post, he would have done the same thing that Kaivon and Desmond did under similar circumstances
Swing and a miss, bud. JP loves the cock.
And what he's sharing in this thread are solid theories and possibilities alot of folks here aren't willing to accept.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:21 pm to JPLSU1981
I mean, you seem so hard to be trying to find a way this is NOT rape and even saying you've done the same thing in the past. The difference is that Kaivon was caught and you weren't
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:26 pm to mikelbr
So where's the slightest bit of evidence Kaivon and company were drunk besides him declaring it so? They didn't even declare it.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:27 pm to clip11
quote:
I mean, you seem so hard to be trying to find a way this is NOT rape and even saying you've done the same thing in the past. The difference is that Kaivon was caught and you weren't
Man I really don’t know. I wasn’t there,none of us were
But i am VERY uncomfortable putting someone in jail/prison because they had drunk consensual sex with someone else who was likely
drunk as well
Our system is prove to me BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that a crime has occurred……maybe our system is wrong
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:34 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Man I really don’t know.
Then there you go. You don't know and they aren't saying they were. The law says you can't have sex with an intoxicated person. The evidence says she was very intoxicated, there's no reason to believe they were.
I'll call it now, they're going to prison. Don't know for how long but they will see the inside of a cell. I know that you might lose sleep, but it is what it is.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:36 pm to clip11
quote:
The law says you can't have sex with an intoxicated person.
So you admit Madison raped the boys?
Or are you saying males should be held to a higher standard than females?
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:37 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
drunk consensual sex
It wasn't consensual according to the law. Those laws are written in the same legal spirit as age of consent laws. In one you can't consent because of age, in the other you can't consent due to intoxication.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:39 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
So you admit Madison raped the boys?
There’s literally no evidence the gentlemen were intoxicated while there is evidence Madison was almost 4x’s the limit
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:39 pm to clip11
Are you claiming the guys went to a bar and didn’t drink?
Posted on 2/23/23 at 7:40 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
There’s literally no evidence the gentlemen were intoxicated
You sure?
Popular
Back to top



2


