What's new
By:
Filters

Self defense? Or not? - Apple River Stabbing

IBB Jury - On the charges of intentional first degree homicide

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Bonanza said:
We ask questions to witnesses before trial all the time. Sometimes in Court, sometimes in our offices. If it's in our offices, we have to have an investigator present so we don't make ourselves witnesses to the case. Whether the witness is consistent or not, the investigator writes a report summarizing the statements, and we give that to defense. This is almost always recorded. We try to do this nearly immediately in domestic violence cases, as 95% of the time, the victims will recant their statements.

Before any questions are asked, I'll provide a police report with their statements in it. After they read it, I'll ask if anything is wrong or needs correcting. Then I'll start asking my own questions. If it's clearly wrong, I'll confront them with whatever I have and have them explain which is the right version and why. If they've lied before, I'll ask them why.

There's a saying that "crimes committed in hell aren't witnesses by angels". Most of my witnesses are... criminal adjacent. Meaning they aren't exactly upstanding members of society. So it's expected that the witnesses aren't going to be polished, sophisticated, or even believable. But I can't pick and choose, I get what I get. The hardest part of my job isn't asking the questions, it's getting the people into Court. Most of my time is spent trying to track down witnesses, serving them, and then bringing them into court. It's a huge PITA. You might imagine that gang member witnesses aren't exactly cooperative. It isn't uncommon to have the following:

"Good morning sir, can you state your name for the record?"
Fuck you.
"Do you know why you're here?"
Fuck you.
"At this time requesting the Court direct the witness to answer" (Judge: Lil Joker, can you please respond to the questions? If not I'll have to hold you in contempt"
Fuck you.
"Witness ordered remanded, setting an OSC re sanctions"
"People call Officer So and So to the stand"

If a witness refuses to cooperate, it opens a door to allowing hearsay. That's how most statements come in, in cases like that. Live testimony is always a gamble. I'd prefer to have prior recorded statements be the evidence. Plus, it prevents the defense from impeaching the witness with his past.
Click to expand...
A witness that refuses to answer is held in contempt. They can then be jailed indefinitely, correct? What typically happens, though? He's sent to jail and still refuses to get on the stand and answer, and just waits the trial out? And then they release him?
 
Prosecution is trying to get one of the female jurors tossed for nodding off a few times. Probably the 90 year old.

IMG_0397.jpeg


Day 8
 
WashingtonMatt said:
Prosecution wanting lesser charges now. This judge sure doesn't seem impartial.

Click to expand...


Is that proceeding done in front of the jury? I agree the judge is not impartial and he projects it there. As far as the prosecution asking for this is a sign that they think their case is failing. It sucks because the jury might “do something” for the poor family of the dead guy.
 
WashingtonMatt said:
Prosecution wanting lesser charges now. This judge sure doesn't seem impartial.
Click to expand...
06:01. Judge: Mr. Miu left the scene, left the wounded behind. clears throat. After a period of time, he tubed past them. Without rendering aid.
Click to expand...

Either the judge doesn't know how rivers work or that throat clear was because he knew he was about to read some bull shit.

Did this not all start because he was going back up the river to look for a cell phone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
Based on the reading of the charges, a key element is that he intended to kill.

I don't think he intended to kill anyone. He didn't seem to have the opportunity or ability target any particular lethal part of the body, he was just targeting center mass of whoever was assaulting him any given moment. Each victim was only stabbed once, and he never pursued them after they backed off.

Miu really fucked up by agreeing to the detective interview without an attorney. He also lied to the cop, should have kept his mouth shut.

Overall the lies don't really seem to be a factor thus far. We'll see how the prosecution addresses it in closing.

The details of the charges are quite lengthy. It will take the jury a long time to work through them all.
 
Last edited:
DannyK said:
Hard to say from the limited info, but if I was on the jury I think I would let him walk.
Click to expand...
Yep, I’ve been on a bunch of river floats and have seen first hand how ignorant and rowdy people get once the alcohol kicks in. These kids were looking to start something no doubt. Calling the old guy a pervert etc and hanging up like that on him. Like i said before, the old guy probably never been in a situation like that before and was panicking

You see all these videos of young wanna be thugs ganging up on older people and fucking them up. Old guy had every right to be fearful and scared. People do crazy shit when cornered and scared
 
They just showed a video of him in a cop car. Would they have read him his rights at that point?
 
Prosecution closing arguments done. I think they made a good case. However I think they are distorting reality by showing a brief moment where there is an opening and claiming Mui should have taken that path to retreat. I just don't see the average person being able to recognize that opportunity and acting in such a dynamic situation.

Defense closing now. I'll have to catch up later.
 
Good closing by defense.

Edit, didn’t realize prosecutors get a brief rebuttal to closing.

The judge said “brief”, apparently not.

Holly shit, It’s a whole nother closing.

No brief rebuttal for the defense. The prosecutor gets to go first and last. Bonanza, is that right?
 
Last edited:
I just caught up. Defense did an excellent job. The story just seems to line up better with the video.

The prosecution keeps trying to stretch a video frame into a whole narrative that doesn't quite fit, and they try to spin various things. They'd have you think 15 seconds was minutes.
 
WashingtonMatt said:
The prosecution keeps trying to stretch a video frame into a whole narrative that doesn't quite fit, and they try to spin various things. They'd have you think 15 seconds was minutes.
Click to expand...
Yup. They pause the video and try to convince the jury that during that millisecond there was no threat to him and he was free to go.
"At this moment, he is not being attacked"
Yeah, no shit. He was attacked 1 second before and will be attacked again in 1 second, but yeah, right now he's safe. :shaking:
 
I find it a bit odd that our IBB verdict so far is a unanimous not guilty. But I've seen quite a few comments around the net and some other attorney commentary that has a bunch of people solidly in the guilty camp.

I assume the guilty folks are primarily young or emotionally influenced. I think attorneys get hyper focused on some details and automatically toss out self defense.
 
WashingtonMatt said:
I find it a bit odd that our IBB verdict so far is a unanimous not guilty. But I've seen quite a few comments around the net and some other attorney commentary that has a bunch of people solidly in the guilty camp.

I assume the guilty folks are primarily young or emotionally influenced. I think attorneys get hyper focused on some details and automatically toss out self defense.
Click to expand...
What really bugs me is the same thing in the Kyle Rittonhouse incident. You can argue both ways on the defendants, but why aren’t the attackers being charged? There really isn’t any discussion that they are guilty of something. But they get a pass because the DA wants to get the self defense guy.
 
Before the jury was dismissed, they requested to watch the video again. For whatever reason they were only allowed to view the video in the court room, so no chance to for discussion/debate amongst the jury, play/pause/rewind etc. Makes zero sense.

The comment section on this video is overwhelmingly for a guilty verdict.

 
My key takeaway from this, never talk to the cops at all. Dont answer shit and let them take you to jail.

Even if you are innocent you better have it on video.

Kyle Rittenhouse barely scraped by and it was plain as day and on video it was self defense.

Also agree its weird no conversations around the other party being charged. Especially if it’s determined Miu acted in self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh