Important pretrial hearing today in Renisha McBride case

Friday, April 4, 2016

Good morning:

An important pretrial hearing is taking place today in the Renisha McBride case.

Mlive is reporting:

Friday is the last scheduled pretrial conference before Wafer’s June 2 trial. There are 10 motions to be decided upon, according to Bloomfield Hills-based attorney Cheryl Carpenter, who is defending Wafer, 55.

Carpenter is looking to disqualify Lillard, although she wouldn’t say why Thursday; negate the bind-over from the District Court; move the trial to another county due to the attention on the case; reveal cell phone photos of McBride with cash, marijuana and a gun; introduce McBride’s criminal record, including a retail fraud conviction; and present McBride’s student file from her alternative high school in Southfield.

At the objection of the prosecution, Carpenter wants to present evidence about a 2011 crash McBride was involved in. The car she was in slammed into a home, and the occupants, whom witnesses told police appeared intoxicated, fled the scene, Carpenter said. Carpenter also wants to present crime data from Wafer’s neighborhood since January and exclude second-hand witness testimony claiming McBride was looking for help after her crash.

The evidence is not admissible under Rule 404 and should be excluded.


We count on your donations. Please donate today if you appreciate what we do.


7 Responses to Important pretrial hearing today in Renisha McBride case

  1. Malisha says:

    If you can’t enter “prior bad acts” of the defendant into evidence at a trial, how can you justify entering “prior bad acts” of the victim into evidence? I don’t get it.

    • bettykath says:

      This is the MOM defense playbook. Make a motion that includes all the crap and make sure it’s widely disseminated. That puts it in the jury pool and it doesn’t matter that it isn’t entered at trail.

  2. lurker says:

    More victim-blaming in action.

    • Yes, and that kind of evidence is only admissible if the defendant knew it at the time of the fatal encounter.

      He didn’t, so it’s not admissible.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      In some respects, the collision of the lives of two troubled people. However, there’s no call to open the door and fire into someone’s face. That’s not self-defense.

    • gblock says:

      This lawyer seems to be taking her moves right out of Mark O’Mara’s playbook.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: