Friday, June 20, 2014
Judge Dana Hathaway granted a prosecution motion today in the Theodore Wafer murder case that will permit them to provide the jury with transcripts of statements he made during his 911 call and subsequent interrogation by police regarding shooting and killing 19-year-old Renisha McBride.
Armed with a 12 gauge shotgun, he unlocked, opened his front door, and shot her in the face through the locked screen door in response to her knocking on his door early one morning before sunrise. She was unarmed.
He was charged with second degree murder and is claiming self-defense, even though he initially said he fired the gun accidentally.
Game within the Game:
Wafer has a classic were-you-lying-then-or-are-you-lying-now predicament to credibly explain why he said accident when he meant to say self-defense. Since the prosecutor wants transcripts of what he said, there must be other inconsistencies and contradictions that the prosecutor wants to use to skewer him.
People are better at remembering what they read compared to what they see or hear and their recall improves substantially beyond that, if they simultaneously read what they see and hear.
In other words, ain’t nothing in those statements that will help Mr. Wafer.
The Detroit Free Press reported this afternoon that Judge Hathaway continued the hearing to next Thursday (6/26) regarding the defense motion to introduce bad character evidence about Renisha McBride.
The defense is claiming that her social media, including photos on her cell phone, and school records are admissible to show that she had an aggressive and violent disposition.
She will also take up the defense motion to introduce evidence that the character of the neighborhood was changing and McBride may have been knocking on his door by mistake thinking a marijuana dealer lived there.
I do not believe that any of that evidence is admissible.
I am concerned about one thing the prosecutor said today.
The prosecution asked for a jury pool of 200 people today, saying it only plans to ask prospective jurors a few questions: Do you know about this case? What do you know about it? And can you be fair?
Game within the Game:
Colossal mistake equivalent to going to bed at night leaving your back door wide open with an engraved invitation to burglars to come in and steal everything while you sleep.
The problem of jury nullification by racially prejudiced stealth jurors determined to acquit white defendants who murder unarmed black victims, regardless of the evidence, is painfully real. The answers to those three questions will not help the prosecutor determine whether any potential juror is a stealth juror.
The prosecutor who said that is inviting disaster.
Trial is scheduled to start July 21st.
A few words about me: I rely on my 30-year experience as a felony criminal defense attorney and my three years experience as a law professor to analyze the game within the game explaining the applicable rules of law and procedure and the reasons why the lawyers and judges do what they do.
My goal is to assist readers to see through to the heart of a case despite the confusing turmoil of words and phrases that often conceal it.
To educate is to liberate.
If you enjoy and appreciate what I do, please make a donation.