Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch
|
You're seriously asking this? The defense was self-defense. He needed to prove that he had an honest and reasonable belief that he was threatened (I can't remember the exact wording of the nature of the threat involved).
An honest but unreasonable belief would also help in reducing the charge, but is not a complete defense.
You don't believe that the evidence that the victim yelled out a gang name to the defendant, and had gang affiliations that the defendant learned about, including a gangsta rap song that the defendant listened to, is relevant? It's not hearsay or "character evidence," it's evidence of the defendant's state of mind and whether his fear was honest and/or reasonable. From a glance at the article, it seems like it was admitted only because the defendant actually saw it (and it shouldn't have been if he hadn't).
More to the point -- who are you and what have you done with the real Atticus?
