Dandu Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 It may not be conclusive but it is an important piece of evidence favoring the defense. A photo showing bloody injuries on the back of GZ's head would indicate that there was deadly force used by TM, not just TM defending himself. If the prosecutor withheld important evidence in an affidavit submitted under oath then the affidavit did not contain the whole truth. If they were aware of evidence favoring GZ and deliberately made a decision to keep that evidence out of the affidavit then this borders on perjury. I take your point and you make it very well. I think where we differ is on how much can be read into the photo and how helpful it is for the defence. It might be perfectly acceptable to cause the injuries seen in the photo to a person who flashes/points his gun at you. I would still consider that defending yourself and wouldn't think it would have any determinative effect on the murder 2 charge, thus making its exclusion from the affidavit unremarkable. We just don't know how it all went down. Even after a trial I doubt we will ever really know. Unfortunately, this is done all the time. They only include the information that supports the charge they make and they also overcharge. That is why there are so many plea bargains because people are so fearful of what will happen with a jury if they cannot be convinced of their innocence and they plea bargain to get lower charges or a lesser sentence than might be given in a jury trial. I couldn't agree more. It is despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.