re: Gasser didn't testify in McKnight case; Guilty of manslaughter

Well, the law disagrees, on both points.

The idea that everything leading up to the actual shooting is irrelevant is laughable.

quote:

---

No it just shows he has a pattern of violent road rage incidents.

---

Right. But this isnt a road rage incident. Its a murder/justifiable homicide incident.

If this was a civil case about vehicular damages it might be relevant.

quote:

---

Right. But this isnt a road rage incident. Its a murder/justifiable homicide incident.

If this was a civil case about vehicular damages it might be relevant.

---

This absolutely is a road rage incident

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.

---

I should have been more specific and said if he had made a single statement to investigators, a coherent statement with the assistance of counsel, I think he would have walked. His three statements, which were detailed pretty extensively in the trial reporting were all over the place and conflicted at points. You give any competent investigator enough time and he is going to talk you in circles after all. I can imagine Gasser being arrogant enough to talk to them ONCE after the shooting but what idiot doesn’t think “maybe I should lawyer up” the second or third time they get him in the box?

quote:

---

It's called Prieur evidence.

---

In the Prieur case youre looking at determining identity of the assailant so the question becomes, does this person on trial have the capacity to commit the crime alleged. There is no dispute that it was Gasser who shot McKnight. Thats not whats being argued here.

The previous road rage incident should only be admissible under Prieur if this case was a road rage case. Its not. Its a murder/self-defense case. If Gasser had been involved in a previous incident involving self-defense or murder then it might be admissible.

"§ 445. Inference of intent; evidence of acts similar to that charged."

Road rage =/= to murder/justifiable homicide.

"In order to show intent, evidence is admissible of similar acts"

Again, road rage, even involving fisticuffs and especially resulting in a non-conviction, IS NOT similar to murder/justifiable homicide.

" that crime of system are those acts and offenses which are of a like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation. Spencer was a prosecution for armed robbery, and we held that evidence as to another armed robbery was admissible, for there the other armed robbery followed the same modus operandi as the armed robbery charged and was related in time and location."

Obviously the moron judges here in LA latch onto certain terms and phrases and ride with them. In this case they likely latched onto, "related in time and location" and totally ignored the requirement of, "those acts and offenses which are of a like nature"

Again, since the admissible evidence of an arrest of Gasser for a previous alleged crime of "like nature" was that of a road rage incident "related in time and location" and this is a case of murder/self-defense then I would contend that the current charge of murder in this case in the particular time and location that it occurred only met the requirement of a "related in time and location" pertaining to the previous road rage incident and certainly NOT that of a "like nature"

Not only that but the SCOLA had noted in the Prieur case that in previous cases you had 1, 2 and 3 as the number of dissenting judges when interpreting R.S. 15:445/6 in those cases so the court has obviously been divided before over this matter.

I would say an appeal might be in order.

Taken directly from the Prieur case;

"The admissibility of other acts of misconduct involves substantial risk of grave prejudice to a defendant. As to the prejudicial effect of evidence of other crimes, Wigmore says:
"* * * The natural and inevitable tendency of the tribunalwhether judge or juryis to give excessive weight to the vicious record of crime thus exhibited, and either to allow it to bear too strongly on the present charge, or to take the proof of it as justifying a condemnation irrespective of guilt of the present charge. * * *" 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 194 (3rd Ed.). "

What type of law do you practice? And where?

It was self defense, the thug McKnight harassed him, how did he know it was not a gun.

I am a witness...

quote:

---

One thing I noticed is the prosecution mentioning Gasser admitted to pulling his gun out somewhere on Degaulle. That's almost 2 miles away from the shooting. It was not pulled out in the heat of the moment. That's pretty damning in itself.

---

No its not.

I situate mine at the ready from time to time when in my car with my family if I think the situation demands it. There have been times, at night, with my family in the car, in NOLA, on a dimly lit side street with shady looking people approaching, where I have drawn my weapon and kept it near me in case it was needed. Split seconds may count and I dont want to waste any struggling to draw.

I would rather have and not need it than need it and not have it.

You don't understand what you're looking at, just saying.

And again, the 5th Circuit and the LASC already denied writ on the very thing you believe is a sure misstep in this case.