Started By
Message
re: Darius Miles
Posted on 4/1/24 at 2:08 pm to BigFolks6347
Posted on 4/1/24 at 2:08 pm to BigFolks6347
quote:
Shu'Bonte Tyler Greene, a witness in the capital murder case involving ex-Alabama basketball player Darius Miles, died Sunday night after a collision between a motorcycle and truck, the Jefferson County Coroner/Medical Examiner office confirmed to The Tuscaloosa News.
Greene was close with Cedric Johnson, the boyfriend of Jamea Harris, the woman who died on Jan. 15, 2023 after a shooting on the Strip in Tuscaloosa. Greene was also at the Strip on Jan. 15.
Greene was involved in a motorcycle vs. truck collision that occurred at 8:13 p.m. Sunday in Birmingham. Paramedics transported him to UAB hospital where was soon pronounced dead at 8:39 p.m.
1
Posted on 4/1/24 at 2:42 pm to Alabama_Fan
Their case is falling apart.
Posted on 4/1/24 at 3:00 pm to Panthers4life
quote:
Their case is falling apart
Likely hurts the defense, honestly. His prior testimony will be admissible without having to take the stand, and show his character and account of events in front of the defense lawyer.
Posted on 4/1/24 at 9:31 pm to Che Boludo
Not sure it will be admissible and if it does get allowed in it might be grounds for an appeal.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 6:53 am to JustGetItRight
I guess the whole constitutional right to confront your accuser goes right out the window nowadays.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 7:09 am to BFANLC
No, because it only applies to testimony made under oath when that testimony was subject to cross-examination.
This post was edited on 4/2/24 at 7:10 am
Posted on 4/2/24 at 7:56 am to Robot Santa
quote:
No, because it only applies to testimony made under oath when that testimony was subject to cross-examination.
There are even a few exceptions to that one as well. Dying declarations, for example, are admissible.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 8:13 am to Robot Santa
If you were a defendant wouldn't you want that cross examination to be in front of a jury? You've just been denied that right.
Just another example of the government trying to create a loop hole in an iron clad right.
Same as what they've done with the double jeopardy law exemptions.
Just another example of the government trying to create a loop hole in an iron clad right.
Same as what they've done with the double jeopardy law exemptions.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 8:27 am to BFANLC
quote:
If you were a defendant wouldn't you want that cross examination to be in front of a jury? You've just been denied that right.
You don't have a right to cross-examination in front of a jury. You have a right to a jury and a right to cross-examination. It's not ideal, but no rights are being violated.
quote:
Just another example of the government trying to create a loop hole in an iron clad right.
If the confrontation clause was an iron clad right for which there can be no exceptions then a murder defendant could just kill the government's star witness and evade justice. But there are obvious exceptions carved out to prevent that scenario from happening. These are not broad exceptions. There's no conspiracy here.
This post was edited on 4/2/24 at 8:29 am
Posted on 4/2/24 at 8:44 am to Robot Santa
You have the right to confront your accuser. Is that correct? If thats not what it says in the 6th amendment let's just all go home.
I could careless about Miles. I just dislike to see bullshite when it comes the constitution. It's there now let's find a way around it. We'll it doesn't say this or that let's make an exception to void it. Which is what exceptions do.
What's to keep the prosecution from having someone make a statement then disappear? If it works one way it works the other. You can't say that the defense will do this and say the prosecution won't. The 6th is supposed to protect our rights.
Imo his testimony isn't that damning but it is testimony that Miles defensive attorneys should be allowed to cross examine in front of a jury that is going to deem him guilty or not guilty.
I could careless about Miles. I just dislike to see bullshite when it comes the constitution. It's there now let's find a way around it. We'll it doesn't say this or that let's make an exception to void it. Which is what exceptions do.
What's to keep the prosecution from having someone make a statement then disappear? If it works one way it works the other. You can't say that the defense will do this and say the prosecution won't. The 6th is supposed to protect our rights.
Imo his testimony isn't that damning but it is testimony that Miles defensive attorneys should be allowed to cross examine in front of a jury that is going to deem him guilty or not guilty.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 8:48 am to BFANLC
quote:
If you were a defendant wouldn't you want that cross examination to be in front of a jury? You've just been denied that right.
Just another example of the government trying to create a loop hole in an iron clad right.
Same as what they've done with the double jeopardy law exemptions.
Government creating?
Really?
This isn't new. The concept of hearsay and exceptions have been around since we were still English colonies.
As far as the "double jeoprady," I assume you mean when someone can be charged federally and at the state level for crimes coming from the same incident. The idea of state sovereignty is Constitution 101.
This post was edited on 4/2/24 at 8:49 am
Posted on 4/2/24 at 9:19 am to BFANLC
quote:
You have the right to confront your accuser. Is that correct?
Yes. And both Miles and Davis got the opportunity to exercise that right when their attorneys were able to question this guy under oath. That's why the transcript of his testimony is considered an exception to the rule against hearsay. The purpose of excluding hearsay from evidence is that it is inherently unreliable because there is no opportunity to question the person who made the statement. The exceptions cover situations where there is no legitimate concern as to the accuracy of the out of court statements, like a preliminary hearing where the witness was under oath and subjected to cross examination.
quote:
What's to keep the prosecution from having someone make a statement then disappear?
Centuries of well settled law? That scenario doesn't even come close to a hearsay exception and there is absolutely no way that statement comes in.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 9:30 am to Robot Santa
quote:
Centuries of well settled law? That scenario doesn't even come close to a hearsay exception and there is absolutely no way that statement comes in.
My reply was concerning the statement about making witnesses disappear by the defense. If that is a worry it should definitely work both ways. The exception allows the prosecution a freedom that the defendant won't get. You should always be allowed to question your accuser. Since they cross examined him once they now no longer have that right? Hell let's just assume that everything is above board and concrete. No reason to even question his testimony now. They already did.
State sovereignty into the discussion about double jeopardy is irrelevant. Double jeopardy is double jeopardy. If yall think the state government doesn't have laws that cross the double jeopardy line then you haven't been in the real world.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 10:26 am to BFANLC
quote:
My reply was concerning the statement about making witnesses disappear by the defense. If that is a worry it should definitely work both ways.
It does work both ways. If the defense procures the unavailability of a state witness the implication is pretty obvious. If the state procures the unavailability of their own witness, the implication is also pretty obvious. That's why those situations are treated differently, but in either event you don't get to benefit from your own misbehavior.
quote:
You should always be allowed to question your accuser. Since they cross examined him once they now no longer have that right?
They did get to question him. And no, they don't now that he's dead. You can't question a dead person. His prior testimony is only considered reliable evidence because he was subject to cross-examination. This wasn't a statement made to the police. That's still excluded. Only his statements in open court, under oath, subject to cross go into evidence.
This post was edited on 4/2/24 at 10:28 am
Posted on 4/2/24 at 10:51 am to BFANLC
quote:
My reply was concerning the statement about making witnesses disappear by the defense. If that is a worry it should definitely work both ways. The exception allows the prosecution a freedom that the defendant won't get.
The same rules apply for defense witnesses. They're allowed exactly the same hearsay exceptions. If you follow the link I posted earlier, you'll see they're from the Alabama Rules of Evidence and apply equally for both sides.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:31 am to JustGetItRight
Second Bond Hearing For Darius Miles Pushed To June (patch.com)
A second bond hearing for capital murder suspect and former Alabama basketball player Darius Miles has been continued to June 17.
A second bond hearing for capital murder suspect and former Alabama basketball player Darius Miles has been continued to June 17.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 7:17 pm to Alabama_Fan
quote:
second bond hearing for capital murder suspect and former Alabama basketball player Darius Miles has been continued to June 17.
Ridiculous. This is as bad as the Jan 6 defendant pretrial detentions imo.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:39 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Ridiculous. This is as bad as the Jan 6 defendant pretrial detentions imo.
The criminal justice system has time to prosecute who it wants to prosecute and string along those against whom they have flimsy cases. The rights of the accused are eroding away bit by bit by a system convinced it has absolute power
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:04 pm to Pastor Mike
quote:
The criminal justice system has time to prosecute who it wants to prosecute and string along those against whom they have flimsy cases. The rights of the accused are eroding away bit by bit by a system convinced it has absolute power
That's a fair description. They don't have a good case against Miles. I think they're trying to get him to roll over on Davis because they don't have a good case against him either. They can't prove either of these guys intended to get into a shootout, and the only credible eye witness says she "doesn't remember" who fired first (which is pretty telling since she was in the car with the gang bangers).
Page 16 of 17
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News