2 Comments

  1. none of that made any sense, all it does is show the D.A.’s office is willing to waste our money over petty grudges…i hope Mr. Carson hands them their asses if this goes to trial. …they ruined this mans career while allowing known dirtbag criminals to do as they please with little fear of prosecution…it disgusting.

  2. l have been thinking about the DA’s responses. What strikes me most is that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever in either response of any law that says that a Jury’s decision in a prior relevant case is not relevant or admissible or binding in an instant case. The Evidence Code requires a court to take judicial notice of jury verdicts, which seems to indicate that a jury’s finding of “Not Guilty” would be relevant, admissible and binding. Also, a person cannot be both guilty and not guilty. That is why we have trials, to determine whether one is to be found, deemed, and declared “not guilty.” For the prosecution to now say that those defendants are actually guilty, even though a jury found they were not, is, in of itself, an obfuscation of the law and misconduct, IMO. The prosecution and the judge are legally bound to respect and uphold the decisions of a jury.

watcha gotta say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.