Solid objection.
In a criminal proceeding prosecutor can intorduce evidence of the defendant's CHARACTER on the direct case in the following situations:
1. prove def was not the first agressor
2. def raises entrapment
3. MIMIC evidence (referred to above)
-jk
Not according to the jury, eh? :)
law dog,
Here in Wa once one of my buddies was charged with assault and his attorney said that because we are mma fighters we have self control but defend ourselfs when attacked.
It worked for him. My buddy had beat up a off duty probation officer that threw a cig at him.
win or lose, i'm glad you put an end to the idea that we are violent by nature
perhaps we should not call ourselves MMA fighters, but just plain old Mixed Martial Artists - sounds less violent even if the game is the same
sounds like a work......
law dog,
where in ohio do you live/practice law??? great work, congrats!!!
nice
ttt!
"Hey Allen, What was that song you came out to at Mass Destruction?"
It's the theme song to Smokey & the Bandit - Jerry Reed's "Eastbound and Down"
If you see Mike Bruce please tell him I said hello.
LOL at the KKM questioning lawdog.
If I ever need an attorney, you're getting the call.
ttt great story
Nice work.
I love it!
"The victim can't testify to whether the defendant was an MMA fighter"
Sure he/she can. If the prosecutor asks the alleged victim how he knows the defendant, the alleged victim can say, "I wacthed him fight in some cage fights." And there you have it, the jury has heard the testimony, and no matter what the judge instructs after that, the jury will always know that the defendant is a "violent" cage fighter.
That's why I objected before the alleged victim could even answer any questions. That's the difference from paper law (simply reading the law) and trial law (actually practicing the law).
Loretta, you have mail.
so did he have to register his hands as a deadly weapon~ ...LOL....
ttt 4 law dog
Booyah FOR SURE!!! :-)