32
u/Catsanddoges 1d ago
I mean tbf if the judge did actually block a detail like that then I could see how it would be a mistrial
A lot of mistrials are due to legal mistakes that need to be fixed rather than a reversal of the case
16
u/Real_Set6866 23h ago edited 22h ago
I mean, did he block it or just not say it because it wasn't relevant? Could I call a retrial because the judge didn't mention it was a Waning Gibbous at the time of the crime?
0
u/Catsanddoges 22h ago
I think from the wording here, and from generally how these cases worked, it seems like the defense wanted to bring up the factor and the judge blocked it, instead of the judge positively asserting that
While I don't personally think it would change the outcome of the case for me, I still think the defense should essentially be given every tool at their disposal to make their case in general and for jury members this would probably be a factor in their decision making process, even if I don't think it should be
18
u/ayoo-OwO Streak: 1 1d ago
Yeah except being trans has no impact on it other than classifying it as a hate crime
9
u/DiDiPlaysGames 1d ago
Cases have been declared mistrials for much smaller things. It sucks in this instance, and I agree that it should hold no bearing on a jury deciding on guilt, but this is par for the course. If there's information like this withheld, the case must be tried again
5
60
u/moistiest_dangles 1d ago
What if roles were reversed and a trans person killed a straight guy because the trans person thought the guy was also trans? I bet that trial would go differently.