I agree with Gorsuch
-
..and dispute the findings on the 6 justices. That most people are aware they are breaking the law does not constitute evidence that she knew. By that logic you could have an expert witness testify that most gun murders are committed by black males therefore this one is probably guilty.
-
That would not have been the totality of the case against her. I guess the specific contention is that the expert testimony should have been inadmissible, as a statement about her mental state, but there's no indication that without that expert testimony she would not have been convicted anyway.
If a claim by a drug mule not to have been aware of the drugs secreted in their vehicle becomes a powerful piece of exculpatory evidence, then we can just assume that all drug mules going forward will be playing the ignorance card in all trials, and to good effect. Maybe even truthfully. "Hey, there's this mystery business where they'll pay you lots of money to drive you car to America, after they tune it up in their garage. Your job is to drive to this place, leave your car overnight, then you can come back home". I guess the cartels can just start doing that forever, and nobody will ever pay a price for muling.
-
Except that the drugs were coming FROM Mexico, not INTO Mexico.
Still, she can claim lack of awareness, but I doubt the jury will buy it. The expert testimony is not in my opinion evidence to be considered for a criminal trial. That most are aware - which I believe is true - does not constitute beyond reasonable doubt.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Though I’m sympathetic to the dissent there’s some nuance here.
The expert witness wasn’t testifying about ‘people who are like’ the defendant. Rather he was talking about how Mexican drug cartels operate and that they don’t use unwitting mules.
So he wasn’t implicating her guilt by membership of a group. Rather he was knocking down one of her (several) defenses. (She claimed that she didn’t realize there were drugs in her car)
-
Except that the drugs were coming FROM Mexico, not INTO Mexico.
Still, she can claim lack of awareness, but I doubt the jury will buy it. The expert testimony is not in my opinion evidence to be considered for a criminal trial. That most are aware - which I believe is true - does not constitute beyond reasonable doubt.
@Mik said in I agree with Gorsuch:
Except that the drugs were coming FROM Mexico, not INTO Mexico.
I didn't imply otherwise? At least I didn't intend to.
That most are aware - which I believe is true - does not constitute beyond reasonable doubt.
Just another piece of the puzzle. Juries weigh the totality of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, to determine whether the reasonable doubt threshold has been met.
The sort of game played by a defendant of "not being aware", and having that plausible deniability of not being aware, reminds me of the thought experiment of three people in a room, one gets murdered, and the other two blame each other. Absent any other evidence, how does a jury not allow the guilty party to go free? We just depend on there being more evidence, and that thought experiment never happening in practice. Though it sort of has. One that comes to mind is the case of Robert Wone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Robert_Eric_Wone
-
Again, showing the lack of a monolithic conservative faction of the court.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in I agree with Gorsuch:
Again, showing the lack of a monolithic conservative faction of the court.
Or liberal for that matter.
