- 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 9:16 am to lsupride87
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:16 am to lsupride87
quote:
What is scary, is there is a legit chance Gasser does this again.....
Well he escalated from punches to a gun. I bet he gets an RPG next time.
0
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:16 am to TH03
quote:Honestly, that being allowed in court may be the kicker
It was a road rage incident at the same exact intersection that resulted in the defendant physically attacking someone.
I think the jury may legitimately feel Gasser will do this again if they let him walk
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:16 am to slackster
quote:Right. The legal theory is that just because someone did something else in the past, it isn't evidence that they acted that way on this occasion, and, as such, introducing such evidence is extremely prejudicial to the defendant.
It's one of those things that seems incredibly relevant to the average Joe
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:18 am to TH03
quote:Exactly why it shouldn't be allowed, imo. That doesn't provide any evidence related to his actions during this incident.
It was a road rage incident at the same exact intersection that resulted in the defendant physically attacking someone
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:21 am to PearlJam
quote:I am no legal expert. It just seems to me, that provides evidence he is a road raging loon, which is pertinent here
That doesn't provide any evidence related to his actions during this incident.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:21 am to lsupride87
quote:This is exactly why this kind of evidence isn't typically allowed.
It just seems to me, that provides evidence he is a road raging loon, which is pertinent here
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:22 am to lsupride87
Tough to argue fearing for your life without taking the stand. I guess the defense attorney feels the interviews were strong enough to get a manslaughter or not guilty.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:23 am to PearlJam
quote:
That doesn't provide any evidence related to his actions during this incident
No it just shows he has a pattern of violent road rage incidents.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:23 am to slackster
quote:
one of those things that seems incredibly relevant to the average Joe
I see what you did there
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:24 am to tgrbaitn08
Dude could've just took an arse whooping and got paid
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:25 am to TH03
quote:1 other incident isn't a pattern, imo.
it just shows he has a pattern of violent road rage incidents.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:25 am to PearlJam
quote:
Exactly why it shouldn't be allowed, imo. That doesn't provide any evidence related to his actions during this incident.
I found this snippet when the judge agreed to allow the testimony:
quote:
A Jefferson Parish judge will allow prosecutors to discuss Ronald Gasser's arrest after a previous road-rage incident during his trial over NFL player Joe McKnight's death.
Judge Ellen Shirer Kovach, of 24th Judicial District Court in Gretna, agreed with prosecutors that state law allows them to use the incident, which occurred at the same Terrytown intersection about 10 years ago, to argue Gasser had a history of escalating quarrels and aggression
...
Gasser's attorney, Matthew Goetz, objected to allowing introduction of the earlier incident, saying it happened too long ago, was only a misdemeanor and was never prosecuted.
He said the incident, which he characterized as an argument, has nothing to do with the 2016 shooting, in which he said his client was defending himself from McKnight.
"It is beyond belief that the state would try to use this as evidence in this case,” he said.
Prosecutors, however, said the law is clear that the amount of time elapsed is relevant only to evidence that shows "modus operandi," or the method used by a defendant when his or her identity is not known.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:27 am to PearlJam
quote:
1 other incident isn't a pattern, imo.
It's not a coincidence when you do it twice in the same exact area.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:28 am to slackster
Like I said, I think that ruling likely gets any conviction overturned on appeal. I have no opinion as to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused, but I think the judge was wrong to allow that evidence.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:29 am to PearlJam
quote:
1 other incident isn't a pattern, imo.
Gasser's attorneys appealed that decision to allow the testimony, but the appellate court agreed with the judge:
quote:
The state Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal sided with a Jefferson Parish district court judge who decided to allow prosecutors to introduce evidence of a prior road rage incident involving Ronald Gasser, the man accused of fatally shooting former NFL player Joe McKnight.
Appealate judges Robert Murphy, Stephen Windhorst and Hans Liljeberg denied a writ by Gasser's attorneys asking them to reverse the lower's court's decision. The appeals court denied the writ Aug. 9.
quote:
Gasser's attorneys argued that prosecutors were trying to improperly bring in a decade-old incident to prove his bad character and "muddy the waters."
But prosecutors argued the crimes was admissible because it could be used to disprove Gasser's claim of self-defense in the McKnight shooting. In a very similar case, the state Second Circuit Court of Appeal allowed a defendant's prior road rages incidents because the acts "helped to establish intent and lack of accident and mistake," the Fifth Circuit judges wrote.
The judges also found that Kovach had not abused the court's discretion in ruling the evidence admissible.
LINK
Ignore the fact Nola.com can't spell appellate.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:30 am to Joecaster06
quote:
Dude could've just took an arse whooping and got paid
He doesn't look like a guy that can identify the New York Jets third string running back. Probably thought it was some random guy.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:30 am to TH03
quote:So that area it's especially prone to make this individual violent during traffic incidents?
when you do it twice in the same exact area.
I think it happening at the same intersection 10 years later is the definition of coincidence.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:32 am to PearlJam
quote:
Like I said, I think that ruling likely gets any conviction overturned on appeal. I have no opinion as to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused, but I think the judge was wrong to allow that evidence.
Let's hear your argument, based on Louisiana law.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:32 am to slackster
That's surprising to me. Not familiar with La. Procedure, but can that ruling still be appealed to a higher court?
quote:I have no real knowledge of la law. It surprised me that it is admissible based on other jurisdictions I have practiced in and judges (trial and appellate) don't always get it right.
Let's hear your argument, based on Louisiana law.
This post was edited on 1/26/18 at 9:35 am
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:33 am to PearlJam
I mean the judge and the appellate judge disagree with you so I don't know what to say
Page 3 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News