- 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: Gasser didn't testify in McKnight case; Guilty of manslaughter
Posted on 1/26/18 at 10:50 pm to Keys Open Doors
Posted on 1/26/18 at 10:50 pm to Keys Open Doors
Yeah basically. When you have an arrest made, it's a lot easier to meet the standard of proving it was this same defendant by clear and convincing evidence.
If you're linking to unsolved crimes, you have a tougher time. But "signature crimes" are the way in. In the Corkfather case, you had multiple robberies, same area, in a period of months involving 4-5 black males knocking on the door and then barging in once it was cracked, with two staying in front and other two searching, etc. Same descriptions, same methods, etc. The first brother was the one that two other victims did a pretty solid sketch on. The second one was more in the background, and I guess the court felt it was too many leaps to make. You also have to couple that with the fact that it's an entire family of robbers so they actually could have brought different ones along.
If you're linking to unsolved crimes, you have a tougher time. But "signature crimes" are the way in. In the Corkfather case, you had multiple robberies, same area, in a period of months involving 4-5 black males knocking on the door and then barging in once it was cracked, with two staying in front and other two searching, etc. Same descriptions, same methods, etc. The first brother was the one that two other victims did a pretty solid sketch on. The second one was more in the background, and I guess the court felt it was too many leaps to make. You also have to couple that with the fact that it's an entire family of robbers so they actually could have brought different ones along.
This post was edited on 1/26/18 at 10:51 pm
1
Posted on 1/27/18 at 12:33 am to slackster
Defense doesn't put on a case?
Bold move Cotton.
Manslaughter so they could appeal down?
Bold move Cotton.
Manslaughter so they could appeal down?
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 12:33 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 2:05 am to HollyWoodCole
did the pizza affect the verdict?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 3:46 am to tLSU
How do you think this case goes if Gasser shuts his trap after the shooting and doesn’t give the detectives hours of recorded interviews to show the jury?
I think he walks without giving the prosecution all that ammunition.
I think he walks without giving the prosecution all that ammunition.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 3:51 am to Demshoes
quote:
Meaning not beyond a reasonable doubt and likely a not guilty verdict. Too many questions.
Looks like he was found guilty just as the Will
Smith murderer.
None of this should be and they should be guilty.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:19 am to jbgleason
I didn't see the interviews so I don't know what he said, but if you're claiming self defense and make no statement at all and don't testify, I think it's almost a lock that you'll be convicted of murder.
Regardless of what jurors say in voir dire, human nature will always think it is fishy to not explain a self defense situation if you're in tbe right.
A person who looks human in a police interview, with emotion, and acts in the way the jurors would expect to act if they were wrongfully accused of something, is a formidable opponent when you can't cross him in court. If he starts lying and you can dismantle the interview, it's over. That was one of Cardell Hayes' big problems.
Regardless of what jurors say in voir dire, human nature will always think it is fishy to not explain a self defense situation if you're in tbe right.
A person who looks human in a police interview, with emotion, and acts in the way the jurors would expect to act if they were wrongfully accused of something, is a formidable opponent when you can't cross him in court. If he starts lying and you can dismantle the interview, it's over. That was one of Cardell Hayes' big problems.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 7:23 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:45 am to Big EZ Tiger
The big problem with the previous incident being allowed is that Gasser wasn’t charged/convicted.
The DA chose not to prosecute that case because it was a he said/he said incident.
Gasser is obviously a hot headed idiot and his attorney not presenting a case sealed his fate.
The DA chose not to prosecute that case because it was a he said/he said incident.
Gasser is obviously a hot headed idiot and his attorney not presenting a case sealed his fate.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:19 am to TigerFred
quote:
The big problem with the previous incident being allowed is that Gasser wasn’t charged/convicted.
That doesn't matter under the law. You don't even have to be arrested or ever previously identified as a suspect. It's not being offered to prove that you were convicted of a crime (which requires a very high burden to prove), it's being offered to show that you performed a certain act previously and that it shows your motive, knowledge, system, or intent.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:21 am to tgrbaitn08
quote:
Defense didn’t even present a case
Saving it for appeal. Dont want to tip hand on tactics and angle.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:24 am to tLSU
quote:imho Hayes testimony hurt him more. Had he not testified he probably gets off.
That was one of Cardell Hayes' big problems.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:26 am to nola000
quote:
Saving it for appeal. Dont want to tip hand on tactics and angle.
Haha, you can only appeal based upon the record you've made. There are no new tactics or angles in appeal. If you didn't try it during the trial, you've waived it on appeal.
Besides, that's like saving your starting QB till the fourth quarter. The chance of winning on appeal (and a win doesn't mean "not guilty," it simply means you go back to trial) are significantly lower than winning at trial. No one plays the long game in a criminal proceeding.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 8:30 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:28 am to diat150
Yes, his testimony hurt, but I think Fuller knew they were in a bad place going into verdict without it. He'd told the police in the interview a bunch of lies, like that Will Smith punched him several times in the face, and he had to try to explain how that could have occurred with no one else seeing it.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:29 am to TH03
quote:
On second thought the 3 feet seems bad for Gasser.
Not necessarily.
§20. Justifiable homicide
A. A homicide is justifiable:
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
Question becomes, was McKnight attempting to gain entry into the vehicle. Not sure placing your hand on the sill of an open window should be considered an "attempt to gain entry" but jurors in LA are selected from the general populace in LA and Ive never been to a State with such a large percentage of low IQ cretins. Well, Mississippi. But thats setting the bar pretty low. If I were a juror onthis case, based on cursory examination of the information available so far to the public, I would have voted, negligent homicide.
I think Gasser jumped the gun on this one. Either out of an unreasonable fear or out of anger. Neither justified but neither rising to the level of premeditated murder.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 8:32 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:31 am to nola000
quote:
Saving it for appeal. Dont want to tip hand on tactics and angle.
Appeals mostly only cover points of law, so unless there was a big controversy during the trial Gasser probably fricked.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:32 am to CorporateTiger
I was just shooting from the hip with that comment.
They may argue that the previous incident tainted their entire case and that it shouldnt have been permissible so they withheld argument.
They may argue that the previous incident tainted their entire case and that it shouldnt have been permissible so they withheld argument.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 8:34 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:36 am to nola000
Possibly. I’m assuming they objected during trial about the admission of that stuff, but I’m not up to date enough on case law to know whether the judge’s ruling was solid or not.
Either way, not the best sign for Gasser.
Either way, not the best sign for Gasser.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:38 am to tLSU
quote:
I didn't see the interviews so I don't know what he said, but if you're claiming self defense and make no statement at all and don't testify, I think it's almost a lock that you'll be convicted of murder.
Regardless of what jurors say in voir dire, human nature will always think it is fishy to not explain a self defense situation if you're in tbe right.
A person who looks human in a police interview, with emotion, and acts in the way the jurors would expect to act if they were wrongfully accused of something, is a formidable opponent when you can't cross him in court. If he starts lying and you can dismantle the interview, it's over. That was one of Cardell Hayes' big problems.
Yep.
But if you do testify, you better be able to stand up to a cross-examination or you'll hang yourself with your own words.
Gasser's lack of remorse has to hurt. A normal person who shot someone to death in self-defense would be an emotional wreck.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:43 am to CorporateTiger
They took it up, and the 5th Circuit and Supreme Court denied the writ. Could a different panel think differently? Sure. Likely? No way.
Their best argument will be that it's too remote in time, but the fact that it was so similar and at the same intersection likely kills that.
Their best argument will be that it's too remote in time, but the fact that it was so similar and at the same intersection likely kills that.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:49 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
. A normal person who shot someone to death in self-defense would be an emotional wreck.
Nah. If I kill someone who was coming for my life, I don't think I would be an emotional wreck at all.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 8:49 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:50 am to lsupride87
So was it ever determined whether or not McKnights fingerprints were on the exterior or interior door handles?
If yes. Not guilty.
If not. Negligent or manslaughter.
If yes. Not guilty.
If not. Negligent or manslaughter.
Page 20 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News