Gov Abbot to pardon SGT Daniel Perry

[Rust_Cohle]

No, I just highlight lies. If he's pardoned, spot on. I'm on the side of the Sgt, but I dislike lying.

Calm your autism

 

[Marener]

I just linked that which you clearly didn't read either

Provide the quote from your link that says so.

 

[Marener]

Been making them you keep going "but no" and have provided nothing to back up your bs

We are both working off the same information. You just choose to ignore the fact that the investigator was only referring to the grand jury.

When I pointed this out, you speculated this meant that the DA kept the evidence from the trial jury which is baseless.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Provide the quote from your link that says so.

If you want me to be your tutor it'll cost you. Use your eyes and read for yourself you idiot especially the part I QUOTED FROM IT dumbfuck

 

[Rust_Cohle]

We are both working off the same information. You just choose to ignore the fact that the investigator was only referring to the grand jury.

When I pointed this out, you speculated this meant that the DA kept the evidence from the trial jury which is baseless.

You're working on bs cause you're a retard who can't read

 

[Marener]

If you want me to be your tutor it'll cost you. Use your eyes and read for yourself you idiot especially the part I QUOTED FROM IT dumbfuck

You provided one link about a grand jury and said nothing you’re claiming.

I read it. That’s why I asked you to provide the quote, because I don’t think you can.

 

[westwall]

That's Democrat cities for ya, but why do the facts of news stories get twisted on forums? Agenda?

Agenda, of course.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

You provided one link about a grand jury and said nothing you’re claiming.

I read it. That’s why I asked you to provide the quote, because I don’t think you can.

You're lying again cause I posted something else about Grand Jury vs Trial jury (post #414) and quoted the procedures from it which shows the DA violated normal procedure

Wanna keep being retarded?

 

[Marener]

You're lying again cause I posted something else about Grand Jury vs Trial jury (post #414) and quoted the procedures from it which shows the DA violated normal procedure

Wanna keep being retarded?

Yeah, I read it. It doesn’t say anything about “procedures” and it definitely doesn’t say that the DA must provide every bit of evidence to the grand jury.

"Typically, the parties that appear before a grand jury do not have attorneys, and the rules of evidence permit much more evidence than is allowed at a criminal trial."

That doesn’t say anything close to what you’re claiming. All it says is that the rules of evidence are looser. It doesn’t say what the DA must do.

And it still doesn’t show that anything was suppressed at trial.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Yeah, I read it. It doesn’t say anything about “procedures” and it definitely doesn’t say that the DA must provide every bit of evidence to the grand jury.

That doesn’t say anything close to what you’re claiming. All it says is that the rules of evidence are looser. It doesn’t say what the DA must do.

And it still doesn’t show that anything was suppressed at trial.

What do you think a trial is for idiot if not to present ALL RELEVANT FACTS about a case. So you think the lead detective is lying?.further you think he lied about under sworn affidavit? Ok dummy

 

[Marener]

What do you think a trial is for idiot if not to present ALL RELEVANT FACTS about a case. So you think the lead detective is lying?.further you think he lied about under sworn affidavit? Ok dummy

The trial is to present all facts. We have no indication that any facts were kept from the trial.

The lead investigator isn’t claiming that facts weren’t presented at trial. He’s claiming that facts weren’t presented at the grand jury. These are DRAMATICALLY different things.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

The trial is to present all facts. We have no indication that any facts were kept from the trial.

The lead investigator isn’t claiming that facts weren’t presented at trial. He’s claiming that facts weren’t presented at the grand jury. These are DRAMATICALLY different things.

We have a sworn affidavit that says such you moronic shithead. If the Grand Jury allows MORE evidence than is NORMALLY shown at trial and the DA HID that at the GJ that means he also wouldn't allow it at trial..this case never would have went to trial in the first place IDIOT as BOTH detectives agreed it was JUSTIFIED dumbfuck

 

[Marener]

that means he also wouldn't allow it at trial

This is where you go off the rails.

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Prosecutors don’t control what is and isn’t presented at trial. The defense also gets to present evidence. The DA turns over all their evidence to the defense and the defense gets to present what they want.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

This is where you go off the rails.

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Prosecutors don’t control what is and isn’t presented at trial. The defense also gets to present evidence. The DA turns over all their evidence to the defense and the defense gets to present what they want.

No dumbass. This DA did tell the detectives what to leave out because he wanted to convict regardless what the evidence said

MORON

 

[Marener]

No dumbass. This DA did tell the detectives what to leave out because he wanted to convict regardless what the evidence said

MORON

He may have told him what to leave out in his testimony to the grand jury.

But the grand jury doesn’t convict anyone. They indict.

The lead detective doesn’t claim any evidence was left out of the trial.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

He may have told him what to leave out in his testimony to the grand jury.

But the grand jury doesn’t convict anyone. They indict.

The lead detective doesn’t claim any evidence was left out of the trial.

Once again idiot let me break this down for you
1) Grand Jury trial (where ALL evidence is to be presented including much more than what is normally shown at Jury Trial. This is where a GJ decides if the case should proceed to Jury) In this case the DA didn't allow the lead detective to show ALL his findings (procedural misconduct, witness tampering)

2) Jury Trial (If the DA didn't allow evidence shown at GJ what makes you think he would allow it here)

This case should never have gone to Jury. Which is why SGT Perry will be pardoned and you'll still be an illiterate faggot

 

[Marener]

Once again idiot let me break this down for you
1) Grand Jury trial (where ALL evidence is to be presented including much more than what is normally shown at Jury Trial. This is where a GJ decides if the case should proceed to Jury) In this case the DA didn't allow the lead detective to show ALL his findings (procedural misconduct, witness tampering)

2) Jury Trial (If the DA didn't allow evidence shown at GJ what makes you think he would allow it here)

This case should never have gone to Jury. Which is why SGT Perry will be pardoned and you'll still be an illiterate faggot

View attachment 775221

Let me tell you what you got wrong.

1. Not ALL EVIDENCE is presented to a grand jury. In fact, in Texas, there is NO OBLIGATION for the prosecutor to present any exculpatory evidence.

“No matter how convincing the witness statements or documents might be, there is no legal requirement that any evidence favorable to the accused be presented for grand jury deliberations. What the Grand Jury hears is 100% up to the prosecutor’s discretion.”

Grand Jury Proceedings in Texas: Indictment and Defense - Dallas Justice Blog

Grand Jury Proceedings in Texas: Indictment and Defense - Dallas Justice

www.dallasjustice.com

2. As I’ve stated three times now, at trial, the prosecutor doesn’t have complete control over what evidence is presented. Unlike the grand jury, the defense gets to make their argument and present their evidence. The prosecutor doesn’t “allow” things to be presented by the defense because he doesn’t have authority over it. You have continually failed to address this point.

I told you if you would shut up I could teach you something.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Let me tell you what you got wrong.

1. Not ALL EVIDENCE is presented to a grand jury. In fact, in Texas, there is NO OBLIGATION for the prosecutor to present any exculpatory evidence.

“No matter how convincing the witness statements or documents might be, there is no legal requirement that any evidence favorable to the accused be presented for grand jury deliberations. What the Grand Jury hears is 100% up to the prosecutor’s discretion.”

Grand Jury Proceedings in Texas: Indictment and Defense - Dallas Justice Blog

Grand Jury Proceedings in Texas: Indictment and Defense - Dallas Justice

www.dallasjustice.com

2. As I’ve stated three times now, at trial, the prosecutor doesn’t have complete control over what evidence is presented. Unlike the grand jury, the defense gets to make their argument and present their evidence. The prosecutor doesn’t “allow” things to be presented by the defense because he doesn’t have authority over it. You have continually failed to address this point.

I told you if you would shut up I could teach you something.

From your link, first paragraph

"Instead, grand juries consider presented evidence and render a decision based solely on that presented evidence"

And if the DA tells detectives to without hold evidence that is tampering and misconduct

We done here moron or you wanna keep teaching me how stupid you are

 

[Dadoalex]

Says the guy calling people "Gaybo" must be hard being a retard

View attachment 775200

There you go again queenie.
Hard for retard.

Whatever gets your tiny mushroom blooming.

 

[Marener]

From your link, first paragraph

"Instead, grand juries consider presented evidence and render a decision based solely on that presented evidence"

And if the DA tells detectives to without hold evidence that is tampering and misconduct

We done here moron or you wanna keep teaching me how stupid you are

So you’re just going to ignore me proving you wrong twice.

I get it. You’re a coward who can’t admit they’re wrong.

No evidence was withheld at trial. The conviction was perfectly lawful.

As for witness tampering, you’re going to have to tell me what they threatened him with. We already determined that the evidence in a grand jury is solely at the discretion of the prosecutor.