The official ‘Tory Lanez vs Megan Thee Stallion’ trial thread.
- Thread starter Danny Ocean
- Start date
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
I think some of these cats never been on jury duty
I've never had jury duty. Got called for the first time this year and then the case wound up not going to trial so I didn't have to show up.
Fani Willis fan
Veteran
Its over, hes gonna get acquitted. They're scrambling to add charges.It looks like we aren't going to be updated as thoroughly now that every social media outlet decided to monetize their coverage
Does anyone know if the general public is allowed in the court room or is it journalist and close family?
Yeah they’re allowed
Thurgood Thurston III
#LLNB #LLLB #E4R | woooK nypdK
Joined this year, half their posts are from this thread alone but they’re confused why their getting sused out. Ok
Roc Nation ain't playing
NO THEY DIDNT.
THIS WAS THE SAME COP
THEY HAD ON THE STAND FRIDAY
TO TALK ABOUT THE 80 MINUTE TAPE
AFTER THE JUDGE ALLOWED IT
DUE TO THE DEFENSE.
IF THE DEFENSE NEVER MENTIONS
THE RAP SONG THE JUDGE
WOULDNT HAVE ALLOWED IT NEITHER
MicIsGod
They like what that mean
I’m confused I’m not disagreeing with you.
NO THEY DIDNT.
THIS WAS THE SAME COP
THEY HAD ON THE STAND FRIDAY
TO TALK ABOUT THE 80 MINUTE TAPE
AFTER THE JUDGE ALLOWED IT
DUE TO THE DEFENSE.
IF THE DEFENSE NEVER MENTIONS
THE RAP SONG THE JUDGE
WOULDNT HAVE ALLOWED IT.
Nigerianwonder
Superstar
again, not knowing legalities will have people in their feelings. prior inconsistent statements are very common evidence lol. this is one of the reasons why criminal commandment #1 is: you have a right to remain silent, what you can and say will be used against you!cuz of course most people are going to give different stories at different times. just stfu if you want to stay out of it!
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.
Rule 613. Witness’s Prior Statement
www.law.cornell.edu
You do some googles and think you know something. Its not that simple. Kelsey is not on trial. Tory is. And her statements are a key part in this case cause there is a lack of physical evidence and witnesses that definitively implicates Tory. The Jury has no choice but to weigh heavy on kelseys statement as part of their decision.
Grounds for appeal doesn't mean they will automatically win the appeal. Improperly admitted evidence is the top reason for appeals. The judge made a call to include the whole interview even the recanted parts. I believe that evidence was improperly admitted. They could have ommitted the parts Kelsey recanted and said she lied on and played the rest.. They didnt. they played the whole tape in full knowing jury was going to hear slander and scenarios that didnt happen. She was on the stand. She signed an immunity deal to testify so they knew her story was changing. They could have asked her to give answers on the spot for the parts she recanted. There was no reason introduce known lies to jury which would only serve to negatively impact the defendant when they didnt have to.
So in appeal they would definitely argue that including false statments in her testomy that paint the defendant as guilty and in a negatively light could have prevented him from having a fair trial.
Women on TikTok and Twitter are going to be insufferable
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
prosecutors tryna add charges because they need to ensure a W somewhere.... Tory goes scott free and they careers would be a laugher 