Given the kind of personalities involved in this case, I can certainly see why jurors might be concerned about being recorded, esp. if/when their identities are made known.
After all, they and their families live in that area and many of them are probably employed in that area. Tough situation to be in…
I watched his testimony again yesterday, and I was really surprised today when Mr. B did not point out that the ear witness only heard two shots. Especially since the ear witness was so definite about the number.
Mr. B said a shot, and seemed to question whether he heard any shots at all, rather than highlighting the number of shots that he heard as two instead of three.
I mean, if the jury believes there were only two shots instead of three, that automatically eliminates the charges regarding RG, correct?
I agree her version of the sequence of events seems contrived. I still think they were grappling for the gun, RG handed her the phone so he could subdue MB, she was yakking with ED but also tried to help RG deal with MB and the gun discharged. And having beat MB into unconsciousness and the PD arriving just as RG has MB on the ground with the gun beneath him, and the officer immediately taking RG’s word that MB was the shooter, letting RG go back into the house, no test for GSR, no evidence of a third round, etc., etc., etc. - the shoddy police work was like a gift to them.
It just doesn’t make sense that if it happened that way, if you saw someone walking up and could see that they had a gun, that you wouldn’t just operate on instinct and run inside, lock the door, attempt to barricade the door and immediately call 911. The first thing you would do is put as much space and as many obstacles between you and the gun as possible.
He did, but the mention of the ear witness statement about only hearing two shots would have helped confirm it, so I’m surprised it did not come up in his remarks.
It is well worth the time to go back and watch his whole summation for anyone who missed it. It was really powerful.