🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4q9sal$elp@news.2sprint.net> rneff@2sprint.net (Rusty Neff) writes:

   billms@nixon.icsl.ucla.edu (Bill Mangione-Smith) wrote:

   >In article <31C7F3B2.5E43@pacific.telebyte.net> Grizz <glengoed@pacific.telebyte.net> writes:

   >   The problem is you had a group of idiots as jurors. The handgun 
   >   expert trying to prove that Blade's gun could not fire accidently
   >   goofed. The gun went off in his demonstration. The whole news service
   >   reported he would probably be acquitted. The fact that he wasn't meant
   >   he had a very poor lawyer who didn't point it out. The juror
   >   probably changed their mind when they learned the significance of
   >   what they saw. The judge realized the jury didn't get the point.

   >All of which has nothing to do with what actually happened.  The judge responded
   >to a Defense motion entered before the trial began.  The expert witness had
   >nothing to do with setting the verdict aside.

   >Bill

   Actually, the motion was filed after the prosecution presented its
   case.

I've seen three reports in the national press that very clearly state that the motion
was filed before the case.  The quote from the defense attorney clearly said that
the judge agreed with him that the issue should have never gone to the jury.

Bill