|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Hayden murder case dismissed
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The murder case against Courtney Hayden has been dismissed.
In 2015, she was convicted in the shooting death of Anthony Macias, but today, Judge Nanette Hasette granted Hayden's motion to dismiss the case, ruling that prosecutors intentionally suppressed evidence that might have changed the outcome of the trial. That evidence might have proven Hayden's claim that it was self defense.
She was originally granted a new trial after her defense attorneys learned about the evidence issue.
District Attorney Mark Gonzalez, who wasn't in office during Hayden's trial, says he probably won't appeal Judge Hasette's decision. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(6/1/2017)
|
| And people ask why laws like stand your ground and the castle doctrine are needed. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/1/2017)
|
And prosecutors are in jail pending arraignment on charges of obstruction of justice and contempt of court, right? Right?
Oh, nevermind. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
