Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Feds Indict Officers In Breonna Taylor Death, Including Brett Hankison Found Not Guilty In State Trial

Feds Indict Officers In Breonna Taylor Death, Including Brett Hankison Found Not Guilty In State Trial

Merrick Garland wants what state prosecutors were unable to achieve, convictions in the raid where police responded to gunfire from Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, accidentally killing her.

Yesterday the United States Attorney General announced charges against four Kentucky police officers for various crimes around a search warrant for the apartment of young black woman Breonna Taylor.  Those charged are Officer Brett Hankison, Detective Kelly Goodlett, Detective Joshua Jaynes, and Sergeant Kyle Meany.

Notably, all four of the officers charged are subject to execution if found guilty on the most serious of the charges specified in the indictments, those alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242 that resulted in death.  Many of the other counts are good for 20 years in prison.

It is also notable how heavily these indictments rely on undocumented and ambiguous assertions of supporting evidence, especially given the severity of the charges.

This search warrant in question was served on Taylor’s apartment during the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, directed at criminal target J.G., a purported drug dealer.  During entry the officers were shot at by Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who fired a handgun at the officers as they entered Taylor’s residence.

One of the entering officers was struck and severely wounded in the leg by Walker’s fire—it appears from the large quantity of blood at the scene that only the prompt application of a tourniquet saved that officer’s life.  The officers then returned fire, and Taylor was struck and killed by one of the officers’ rounds.

Officer Brett Hankison

One of the police officers who fired into the apartment, but whose rounds did not strike anybody, was Brett Hankison.  Hankison discharged his AR-style rifle into the apartment in the subjective belief that this was in necessary defense of his fellow officers being fired upon.

Several of Hankison’s rounds penetrated through Taylor’s apartment into an adjacent apartment in which three people were present. Hankison would be charged under Kentucky law on three counts of wanton endangerment based on the danger his rounds purportedly presented to those three people in the adjacent apartment.  He would be acquitted of all charges in a jury trial in state court, as covered by Legal Insurrection here:

Not Guilty Verdict For Louisville Officer Involved In Breonna Taylor Raid

The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is now taking its own shot at Hankison for the same conduct for which he was acquitted in state court, now on two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law.

The Federal indictment against Hankison specifies two counts of criminal conduct.

The first count is based on the DOJ claim that Hankison violated the civil rights of Taylor and Walker to be free of unreasonable seizure, by his conduct of firing into Taylor’s apartment.

The second count is based on the DOJ claim that Hankison violated the civil rights of the three people in the adjacent apartment by his conduct of firing the rounds that entered their apartment, characterizing these rounds as having been fired “after there was no longer a lawful objective justifying the use of deadly force.”

Both charges are based on alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242. If Hankison is found guilty of deprivation of civil rights under color of law under circumstances in which death results, he is subject to execution.

Challenges to Federal Conviction of Hankison

Conviction on these charges would require that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hankison’s use of force was not justified as lawful defense of himself and his fellow officers being subject to the gunfire of Kenneth Walker. This argument has already been made in Kentucky state court, and found lacking before that court’s jury, resulting in Hankison’s acquittal in that case.

That said, it is always possible that Federal prosecutors in Federal court might have better luck in convincing a Federal jury that they have met the high burden necessary to defeat Hankison’s claim of justification.

Again, the consequence for Hankison, should the Federal prosecution be successful in overcoming his legal defense of justification, would potentially be execution.

Detective Kelly Goodlett

Another Kentucky officer charged yesterday by the Department of Justice in the events surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor is Detective Kelly Goodlett, whom the DOJ alleges both conspired with other officers to falsify the search warrant affidavit for Taylor’s apartment, claimed to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, and also conspired to cover up this conduct after Taylor’s death, claimed to be a violation of 18 U.S.C.  1512(b)(3).  Further, the indictment charges Goodlett under a general conspiracy state, 18 U.S.C. § 371.

The Federal indictment against Goodlett claims the following criminal conduct on her part.

First, the indictment alleges that Goodlett failed to challenge or object to a purportedly false claim made in the affidavit for the search warrant for Taylor’s apartment that the criminal target of the warrant, alleged drug dealer J.G., was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment.

Second, the indictment alleges that Goodlett falsely asserted in the affidavit for the search warrant that other detectives had “verified” (scare quotes in indictment) that J.G. was using Taylor’s apartment as his “current home address” (again, scare quotes in indictment).

Third, the indictment claims that in May 2020, roughly two months after the service of the warrant and Taylor’s death, Goodlett agreed to meet with another now-indicted officer, Joshua Jaynes, and during this meeting the two conspired to fabricate a false story that yet a third officer (Sergeant J.M., not indicted) had told them that J.G. was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment.

Fourth, the indictment alleges that in August 2020, Goodlett falsely told Federal investigators that Sergeant J.M. “made a nonchalant comment” (scare quotes in indictment) that criminal target J.G. was getting “mail or packages” at Taylor’s home (again, scare quotes in indictment).

If Goodlett is found guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3)—the alleged conspiracy to cover up the purported violation of § 242—she is subject to a sentence of 20 years in prison.  If Goodlett is found guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 she is subject to a sentence of 5 years in prison.

Further, as with Hankison, if Goodlett is found guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 in which death results—the alleged falsification of the search warrant, a consequence was the death of Breonna Taylor—she is subject to execution.

Challenges to Federal Conviction of Goodlett

The biggest challenges to conviction of Goodlett on these counts appears to me to lay in the ambiguity of the claims of the indictment—all such ambiguity undercuts the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.

For example, the indictment claims Goodlett knew to be false the claim by fellow detective Jaynes that he had “verified” from a Postal Inspector that criminal target J.G. was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment.  Even if we assume Jaynes’ claim to be false, however, the indictment provides no evidence to suggest that Goodlett knew the claim to be false.

The indictment then claims that Goodlett had falsely added to the search warrant affidavit that detectives had “verified” (scare quotes in indictment) from databases that criminal target J.G. was using Taylor’s apartment as his “current home address” (again, scare quotes in indictment).

I note first that all these “scare quotes” around material claims of this indictment raise cause for concern because of the resultant ambiguity.  What does “verified” mean in this context? What does “current home address” mean?

If J.G. had an existing dwelling that was his primary residence apart from Taylor’s apartment, but was communicating to others that he was currently staying at her apartment, could this communication reasonably (even if mistakenly) perceived by law enforcement as “verification” that J.G. was using Taylor’s apartment as his “current home address”?

Then we have the alleged count of conspiracy based on the meeting between Goodlett and Jaynes, where they purportedly agreed to falsely claim that LMPD Sergeant J.B. had told them in January 2020 that criminal target J.G. was receiving packages that Taylor’s apartment—a statement that J.M. would later deny having made.

This claim is made entirely in the absence of evidence.  There is no indication that either Goodlett or Jaynes concedes to this purported conspiracy, and there’s no indicated source of evidence—even presented in anonymized fashion—showing this purported conspiracy.  Is it merely a speculation on the part of the prosecutors?

Finally, we have the counts based on the purportedly false statements of Goodlett and Jaynes that Sergeant J.M. had said “in passing” or in a “nonchalant comment” that J.G. was getting “mail or Amazon packages” at Taylor’s apartment.

The manner in which this communication is being described suggests purely informal verbal communication—meaning, the form of communication most likely to involve misunderstanding.  There is no indication of any documentation of any of this communication, documentation that would necessarily make all of these claims concrete and non-ambiguous.

Is a comment made “in passing” or in a “non-chalant comment,” or the denial of a comment made in such an informal verbal fashion, sufficient to prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Detective Joshua Jaynes & Sergeant Kyle Meany

Two additional Kentucky officers associated with the warrants served on Taylor’s apartment were also indicted yesterday by the Department of Justice:  Detective Joshua Jaynes, and Sergeant Kyle Meany. Both were charged under a single indictment.

The single Federal indictment that charges both Jaynes & Meany together, includes count one directed at both men, claiming that Jaynes and Meany wrote out and approved, respectively, the search warrant directed at Taylor’s apartment knowing it to be false.

Specifically, the search warrant approved for Taylor’s apartment was based on affidavits sworn by Jaynes & Meany.  The indictment claims that both officers knew the affidavit contained false, misleading, and out-of-date information, that the affidavit omitted material information, and that the officers knew they lacked probable cause for the warrants. Further, the officers knew the search warrants would be executed by armed police officers, thus creating a dangerous situation for anyone on the premises subject to search.

This alleged conduct is the basis for the first count in this indictment for deprivation of rights under color of law, under 18 U.S.C. 242.

As with Hankison and Goodlett, if Jaynes or Meany is found guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 in which death results, either man would be is subject to execution.

In terms of specific conspiratorial conduct, in count two directed specifically at Jaynes, the indictment claims that in April or May 2020, after the March shooting of Taylor, Jaynes attempted to get a fellow officer (J.M., unindicted) to say that he had prior to the shooting told Jaynes that criminal target J.G. was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment.

The indictment also claims that Jaynes wrote in an Investigative Letter that he had “verified through [J.M.] of LMPD, who contacted the postal service, that [J.G.] had been receiving packages at” Taylor’s apartment.

The indictment further claims that Jaynes falsely stated in the Investigative Letter that a search of LEO database CLEAR had verified J.G. was using Taylor’s address “as his residence” (scare quotes in indictment).

The indictment also references the alleged meeting between Jaynes and Kelly Goodlett, already mentioned above, in which the two purportedly orchestrated a false story claiming that LMPD Officer J.M. had informed them that criminal target J.G. “gets Amazon or mail packages [at Taylor’s home]” (scare quotes in indictment).

Finally, the indictment alleges that this same false claim was in 2020 repeated to investigators from the LMPD Public Integrity Unit as well as to investigators from the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, and then in June 2022 to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

All of this conspiratorial conduct, the basis for count two of the indictment, is allegedly in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, good for 20 years in prison, 18 U.S.C. 1512, good for 20 years in prison, and 18 U.S.C. 371, good for 5 years in prison.

The third count against Jaynes essentially consists of lying to agents of the FBI, by his having made allegedly false statements in his Investigative Letter, a claimed violation of 18 U.S.C. 1519, and if convicted under this count Jaynes is subject to a sentence of 20 years in prison.

Finally, the fourth count of this indictment is directed towards Sergeant Kyle Meany and alleges that he made false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, specifically in allegedly falsely telling the FBI that the request for a “no knock” search warrant was made because LMPD’s SWAT unit, which would be serving the warrant, had asked for that “no-knock” authority.  The indictment claims that LMPD SWAT made no such request for “no-knock” entry at Taylor’s apartment.

This is claimed to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, and if convicted under this count Meany is subject to a sentence of 5 years in prison.

Challenges to Federal Conviction of Jaynes & Meany

As with Goodlett, the biggest challenges to conviction of either Meany or Jaynes on these counts appears to me to lay in the ambiguity of the claims of the indictment—again, all such ambiguity undercuts the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.

For example, with respect to count one, directed at both Jaynes Meany, deprivation of rights under color of law, and punishable by execution on these facts, the count simply summarily alleges that both men knew “at the time that the affidavit contained false and misleading statements, omitted material information, relied on stale information, and was not supported by probable cause.”

Evidence for any of this? None is presented within count one. That said, in fairness, perhaps the necessary “evidence” is described in the following counts, two through four, so let’s take a look at what’s there.

In cont two, conspiracy by Jaynes, alleging three violation of Federal statutes good for 20 years, 20 years, and 5 years, respectively, it is alleged that Jayne falsely claimed that LMPD Sergeant J.M. had informed him that criminal target J.G. was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment, a claim J.M. denies. Specifically, J.M. claims now that he was unaware of whether J.G. was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment.

In any case, this kind of informal verbal communication, claimed by Jaynes to have occurred in January 2020, months prior to the service of the search warrant, is precisely the kind that is prone to ambiguity and reasonable error.   Once again there is no documentation of any of this communication.

For example, might Jaynes have heard from a different source that J.G. was receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment, and reasonably but mistakenly recalled that he’d received this information in his conversation on this subject months earlier with Sergeant J.M.? An explanation consistent with innocence undermines proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

The indictment in count two then claims that Jaynes included in his Investigative Letter a misleading claim that a detective “was able to verify through CLEAR, a law enforcement database, that as of February 20, 2020 [J.G.] used” Taylor’s apartment as his residence. The indictment then claims that this claim is demonstrably misleading because J.G. “did not live” at Taylor’s apartment.

This is all very ambiguous, however.  Might J.G. have had a primary dwelling elsewhere than Taylor’s apartment, and also have spent substantial time at Taylor’s apartment, such that he was for all practical purposes “residing” from time to time in both locations?

The indictment also alleges that a “Postal Inspector”—presumably an employee of the United States Postal Service—had announced months after the service of the search warrant that criminal target J.G. had not received packages at Taylor’s address.

Even assuming this is verifiably correct for delivery of USPS packages, however, how exactly would a USPS Postal Inspector have personal knowledge about whether J.G. had received packages delivered by alternative means, such as Federal Express, or even just personal delivery?  Such deliveries by non-USPS means would be fully relevant for the purposes of the search warrant.

It is notable that the indictment does not assert that it is demonstrably the case that J.G. never received packages at Taylor’s apartment delivered by any means whatever.  Why not?  If any packages were received by J.G. at Taylor’s apartment by any means, then arguably Jaynes’ statements to that effect were entirely truthful.

Similarly, count three of this indictment alleges that Jaynes made false statements to the FBI, but the falsity of these statements is based on the same ambiguous premise already covered above that Jaynes was outright lying about criminal target J.G. receiving packages at Taylor’s apartment.

That brings us to count four of this indictment, now specifically targeting Meany, which similarly alleges that Meany made false statements to the FBI, and it shares the same ambiguity vulnerabilities as does count three against Jaynes.

Bottom Line

The bottom line of my reading of these indictments is that they strike me as profoundly superficial, light in evidence, and ambiguous as the basis for criminal charges as serious as capital offenses to be brought against these law enforcement officers on the facts of this case.

I note in passing that the “lied to the FBI” accounts are apparently all based on interviews conducted by the FBI of these officers only in June of 2022—in other words, just a couple of months ago, and more than two years after the service of the warrant and the death of Breonna Taylor.

Why so long a delay?  Is the answer simply political necessity of a fantastically failing Biden Presidency?

I try to limit myself to the law generally, and use of force law in particular, but I expect that the Legal Insurrection community will have plenty to say about the political dynamics around these indictments of these officers.

REMEMBER

You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 10
Eddie Baby | August 5, 2022 at 6:16 pm

It’s as if Ben Crump wrote up these indictments.


 
 0 
 
 16
JustSayN2O | August 5, 2022 at 6:16 pm

DOJ going after these guys but not Lt. Michael Byrd? That’s messed up.


     
     1 
     
     9
    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to JustSayN2O. | August 5, 2022 at 6:27 pm

    Black privilege.


     
     0 
     
     11
    Subotai Bahadur in reply to JustSayN2O. | August 5, 2022 at 6:33 pm

    Byrd’s murder of Ashli Babbitt was done in pursuit of the Federal goal of forcing submission on the American people. Byrd has a brilliant career as a Zampolit ahead of him because no one can dare criticize him as a Hero of the State.

    These cops were, however, just doing their jobs, attempting to arrest criminals based on a warrant issued by a court, and returned fire after being fired upon. The alleged criminals being a protected class [black] sealed the cops’ fate with the regime.

    Just woolgathering here, but it comes from someone who is a retired Peace Officer of 28 years. If I was still on the job, I might not rush quite as fast if it were any of the myriad Federales calling for backup.

    But then again, if I was a cop in any of the Democrat run polities that is actively trying to chase off their cops or get them killed, I and my family would be long gone from said polity.

    Subotai Bahadur


       
       0 
       
       1
      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | August 6, 2022 at 4:43 am

      I’ve been meaning to ask: in your years of service, did you ever receive questionable orders? Stand down in the face of civil unrest for example. Or, “people Klara of the community “ were to be given slack?


         
         0 
         
         0
        The Gentle Grizzly in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | August 6, 2022 at 1:50 pm

        “People Klara”?!? I’m not sure where that came from except, possibly, spell Czech gone mad. It was supposed to be “pillars of the community”.

        “Pillars of the community” usually translates to “those who own the town”.


         
         0 
         
         2
        Subotai Bahadur in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | August 6, 2022 at 7:02 pm

        The closest thing was being ordered by someone 5 levels in the chain of command higher than me [in civilian clothes] to falsify a document having to do with fellow staff. My refusal was, surprising for those who know me, actually relatively polite. But it was definite. There were consequences. At the time I was a SGT. And was considered to be fast track for promotion. At times of short staffing, I was known to be used to fill in a Captain’s slot for a few days at a time..

        I retired a little over 10 years later . . . as a SGT. Mind you, my crews trusted me. As did my later bosses. Would not change a thing.

        Subotai Bahadur


           
           0 
           
           0
          The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | August 6, 2022 at 9:21 pm

          Given the sheer number of laws on the books designed just to keep the peasantry in line, and all of the unconstitutional stuff, there is no way I would want to be in law enforcement.

          Both my brother and I – when very young – talked about becoming sheriff deputies. The sheriff of Los Angeles county in those days saw his department’s role as maintainers of peace and order, and all were well-liked, even by those who did not as a rule trust “cops” due to how things were in “the old country”.

          Then, we got a new sheriff, and it went all tactical and law enforcement up-against-the-wall, just like the LAPD. They turned – overnight – into a very nasty bunch.

          My brother and I soon aspired to other things.


 
 0 
 
 9
gonzotx | August 5, 2022 at 6:24 pm

I hate these people


 
 0 
 
 6
CommoChief | August 5, 2022 at 6:24 pm

This one struck me as not quite right. I am opposed to the use of tactical entry following a breach or use of key on a residence where the target hasn’t been under observation and isn’t known to be present. Guessing isn’t good enough. Occupants asleep, startled awake, arm themselves to threat, LEO enters….bad things can and do occur as we see over and over.

It wouldn’t be the first or last time a group of LEO are less than completely honest in a warrant application. Rare but it happens, sometimes as a perceived necessity, sometimes through simple laziness. The Judges really need to start asking questions and asking for exculpatory information as well before simply signing off. Otherwise it becomes a rubber stamp. Especially when the type of entry requested changes as it did here, as I recall.

That said the DoJ here seems to be piling on and searching for a political victory v Justice. They are looking for a plea and if not will use the full power of the Fed Govt to make the process the punishment even without a conviction.


 
 0 
 
 14
Colonel Travis | August 5, 2022 at 6:24 pm

Civil Rights Division is a menace, entire DOJ is corrupt. No one will do a damn thing about it.


 
 0 
 
 9
Olinser | August 5, 2022 at 6:40 pm

The process is the punishment.


 
 0 
 
 13
Jonathan Cohen | August 5, 2022 at 7:12 pm

Garland is the worst AG in my lifetime. The DOJ has become the police state arm of the Democratic Party and their woke supporters. It is bad enough that they were allowed to give a pass to the bigwigs in the FBI for the whole collusion hoax but when they start going after innocent policeman for doing their job, they become a threat to the whole country.

The Supreme Court has never looked into double jeopardy provisions in cases like these. The entire purpose of these Civil Rights laws was to get around the double jeopardy provisions that allowed klan members to get away with murdering civil rights workers in the south. It is now being used to persecute police to satisfy a fake narrative about police murdering innocent black people.

If we don’t put an end to fascistic woke progressivism, our country will fall apart. Ag Garland is working to make the hall 0f fame for evil prosecutors, competing with such inquisitors as Cotton Mather and Torquemada.

What’s next? The dunking stool for Trump supporters?


 
 1 
 
 14
mbecker908 | August 5, 2022 at 7:23 pm

I will never vote to convict a perp based on FBI testimony. I getting to the point where I wouldn’t vote guilty on any federal charge.


 
 1 
 
 8
henrybowman | August 5, 2022 at 7:36 pm

The swamp is throwing red meat to their brownshirt constituency.

“Both charges are based on alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242. If Hankison is found guilty of deprivation of civil rights under color of law under circumstances in which death results, he is subject to execution.”

It’s worth pointing out (and correct me if I’m wrong) that prosecutions citing this particular law have a 100% no-win record when brought by individual citizens against government agents, and a significant win record when brought by government itself. But who is more likely to deprive your rights under color of law than the government?

Why does double jeopardy not prevent these prosecutions?


     
     0 
     
     6
    ecreegan in reply to ray. | August 5, 2022 at 8:00 pm

    Theoretically it’s allowable as dual jurisdiction: the relevant state gets a bite at the apple, and the federal government gets one bite at the apple.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Gosport in reply to ray. | August 6, 2022 at 5:57 pm

    Officer Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case got burned in the local district court for unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Then the feds piled on with 2 civil rights charges to make sure his imprisonment survived any appeal.

    Federal civil rights charges are a mechanism to ensure that the left gets its pound of flesh no matter what the local courts say.


 
 0 
 
 6
Reader45 | August 5, 2022 at 8:59 pm

The officer who was shot, Sgt John Mattingly, wrote a book detailing all the facts of the case, including information the media had and never disclosed. The book is called “12 Seconds in the Dark”. Well worth a read. The interviews shown on TV were selectively edited, as you can imagine. Thank you Andrew for the legal information and analysis of the recent witch hunt. Huge thank you to any current or former officer reading my post. You are appreciated and prayed for.


 
 0 
 
 6
healthguyfsu | August 5, 2022 at 9:24 pm

Black vote grift


 
 0 
 
 4
empiricallyobvious | August 5, 2022 at 10:31 pm

So, the petulant party hack, in this episode played by the AG, continues to get his revenge on his adversaries for the SCOTUS snub. Equal justice under the law is dead in America.
We have officially descended into banana republic status

Another lynching.

Ann Coulter’s write up of the event itself is a testimony of how upside down evil the world today is. I’ve seen those facts no where else.


 
 0 
 
 2
James B. Shearer | August 6, 2022 at 1:27 am

“… If Hankison is found guilty of deprivation of civil rights under color of law under circumstances in which death results, he is subject to execution.”

I don’t see how this would apply as it doesn’t appear his conduct resulted in anyone’s death.


 
 0 
 
 2
James B. Shearer | August 6, 2022 at 1:34 am

“I note in passing that the “lied to the FBI” accounts are apparently all based on interviews conducted by the FBI of these officers only in June of 2022 …”

It seems rather stupid for these officers to have been talking to the FBI. Or am I missing something?


     
     0 
     
     0
    randian in reply to James B. Shearer. | August 7, 2022 at 3:40 am

    Who knows if the FBI’s account of the interviews is truthful. Courts rather bizarrely allow the FBI to destroy evidence aka interview recordings, and submit transcripts of the interview instead. The opportunities for slanting the transcript are obvious, and the transcript cannot be verified to not contain errors or omissions.

      Between the clear set-up of the so-called Whitmer kidnapping dupes and the treatment of the J6 political prisoners, the FBI has lost all credibility they hadn’t already lost with the ridiculous political Russia Russia Russia attacks on President Trump. As far as I am concerned, the FBI needs to be put out of business. Yesterday.


       
       0 
       
       0
      James B. Shearer in reply to randian. | August 7, 2022 at 11:45 pm

      “Who knows if the FBI’s account of the interviews is truthful. ..”

      Well if you don’t talk to them they can’t lie about what you said. Not that I expect that to be the defense. Just don’t see what the upside was to talking to FBI here. Did their lawyers approve?

This is one of the BLM proponents best case for gunning down supposed innocent Black people.


 
 0 
 
 0
E Howard Hunt | August 6, 2022 at 7:52 am

I always wonder if consideration is given to a bench trial in these situations. Is it more likely that a judge will discharge his duty if his feet are held to the fire than a racially charged and intellectually challenged jury will do theirs?


     
     0 
     
     0
    James B. Shearer in reply to E Howard Hunt. | August 6, 2022 at 12:53 pm

    “I always wonder if consideration is given to a bench trial in these situations. ..”

    A bench trial isn’t always an option available to the defense. When it is they sometimes take it. Several of the officers involved in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore successfully opted for bench trials. Of course it helps if there is essentially no evidence of guilt.

    I think opting for a bench trial is something that defense lawyers may be reluctant to do because it looks bad when it doesn’t work.


 
 0 
 
 1
SeymourButz | August 6, 2022 at 10:04 am

Merrick Garland should be in jail


 
 0 
 
 0
Chewbacca | August 6, 2022 at 10:22 am

There’s zero evidence to support this indictment.

This article does beyond a reasonable doubt that we have fascist aholes for a government and can’t afford to throw 2024 on an unelectable candidate.


 
 0 
 
 0
Tom Orrow | August 6, 2022 at 12:37 pm

Andrew,
Re Challenges to Federal Conviction of Jaynes, you wrote that the indictment says that he claimed “a detective “was able to verify through CLEAR, a law enforcement database, that as of February 20, 2020 [J.G.] used” Taylor’s apartment as his residence. The indictment then claims that this claim is demonstrably misleading because J.G. “did not live” at Taylor’s apartment.

You then wrote that J.G. might have resided in two apartments intermittently. Can’t the CLEAR database be searched to determine whether it supported Jaynes’ claim? Whether that info was accurate seems to be irrelevant to this charge against Jaynes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.