Man who gunned down Ahmaud Arbery asks court to ban evidence of his support for Confederacy

[RandySF]

One of the men accused of hunting down and killing Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery wants a trial judge to ban evidence of his support for the Confederacy.

Travis McMichael and his defense attorneys have asked a court to prohibit photos of the vanity Georgia license plate, which included a Confederate emblem, that was on his truck the day he and his father killed Arbery, reported WAGA-TV.

Prosecutors have asked the court to deny the motion, arguing the plates were on the truck when Gregory McMichael and his son armed themselves and chased Arbery down to perform a citizen's arrest after spotting him jogging in their neighborhood in Brunswick.

A neighbor, William "Roddie" Bryan, joined the pursuit and recorded Travis McMichael fatally shooting the unarmed Arbery, who threw punches and reached for the man's shotgun, with three blasts at close range.




https://www.rawstory.com/greg-mcmichael-ahmaud-arbery/

[JustAnotherGen]

1. What an asshole

Funny how their symbol of hatred of black Americans catches them on the ass. He should own it.

[Journeyman]

2. Don't understand. I thought he'd be proud of his associations . . .

after all, they spend their hours believing the South is going to rise again.

(Though for the life of me I can't figure how today's South is going to rise to a level infinitely lower than what it is now.)

[TomSlick]

3. To play devil's advocate here, how is the photo relevant?

The definition of relevance is not that complicated. If the photo does not make some germane fact more or less likely, it is not relevant. Unless the defendant is charged with a hate crime, his motive is not at issue. (I cannot find the charge in the story.)

If evidence is not relevant, it is not admissible. Even if evidence is relevant, it may nevertheless be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by an unfairly prejudicial effect. If the only purpose of the photo is to show that defendant is a bad person, it should not be admitted.

If the trial judge allows the admission of irrelevant evidence, or unfairly prejudicial evidence, there is a risk of a conviction being overturned on appeal. Unless the prosecution can make a reasonable argument for why the photo is admissible, the better course is to exclude it.

[brush]

4. How is it irrelevant if it's in photos/video of the murder?

Are we into altering evidence now?

[TomSlick]

5. The story does not reference photos or videos of the murder.

The reference is to "photos of the vanity Georgia license plate, which included a Confederate emblem, that was on his truck." Again, what fact in dispute does the Confederate emblem make more or less likely to be true?

You suggest an interesting question. If the photo has probative value irrespective of the emblem, the emblem could certainly be obscured. If the Confederate emblem was obscured in the photo, would the prosecutor nevertheless seek its introduction? If the prosecutor would not agree to the introduction of the photo with the emblem obscured, then it is rather clearly irrelevant, or at least unfairly prejudicial.

Again, if the defendant is charged with a hate crime, then his motive would be relevant. However, if the only purpose for seeking the admission of the photo is to show the defendant is a bad person, it should not be admitted.

Even if it was permissible to admit evidence just to show the defendant is a bad person, a license plate regularly available from the Georgia Motor Vehicle Division is not terribly persuasive.

[link:|

[brush]

7. So in non-legalese you're saying if the flag license is visible...

in evidence it should be obscured because it is not relevant?

Why should anything be obscured if it's part of the crime scene?

[TomSlick]

8. Because under the Rules of Evidence irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

If we are to honor the rule of law, it must apply in all cases, even those in which we disagree.

[brush]

9. Hmmmm? Seems if the white man gunned down an unarmed Black man...

committing no crime after chasing him with a truck with a rebel flag license plate, the plate just might be relevant.

[Demsrule86]

6. It goes to motive...racial hatred.

[TomSlick]

10. The Georgia hate crime law was enacted in June, 2020. Ahmaud Arbery was murdered in February, 2020.

That means the defendant is not charged with a hate crime. The motive for the murder is irrelevant.

There should be two goals to a prosecution, to obtain a just conviction and to have it affirmed on appeal. The prosecutor should be interested in removing unnecessary issues on appeal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It would be relevant for whether the killing was pre-meditated

The state charges include malice murder and felony murder. Motive is indeed relevant.

Malice murder is applicable when someone causes the death of another person that is deemed to be unlawful and intentional. Relative to murder, the term malice is considered to imply a clearly deliberate intent to kill void of any legal justification for taking of a life.

https://www.baslg.com/criminal/malice-murder.html

[TomSlick]

13. That's the best argument.

However, the question is whether the murder was intentional and premeditated. Why the murder was intentional and premeditated is not the issue. I'll grant you that it is a subtle distinction but such is the role of the law.

The license plate is not terribly persuasive of the motive of the murderer. The Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate is regularly available from the State of Georgia upon payment of an additional $25 fee. I am not convinced that buying a license plate regularly offered by the State of Georgia is evidence of a intent to commit murder based on race at the time the license plate was purchased.

My concern is that if the Judge allows the admission of the photo of the license plate, they risk any conviction being reversed on appeal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. If you're going to establish intent, 'why' will inevitably part of it

No, it doesn't mean they intended to commit murder when the plate was bought. But it shows an existing prejudice, when they first saw Arbery, against Black people. They were prejudiced people who saw a Black person on a vacant lot and assumed he was a criminal, so decided to kidnap him ("arrest him", in their eyes), and killed him when he tried to stay free.

And blurring it out would be removing information from the video.

[Irish_Dem]

11. It's evidence of motive?

I don't know the legal argument.

But from a layman's point of view, a racist symbol on your vehicle might indicate the motive for the murder.

The fact the perp wants to hide it says it all. He knows it makes him look guilty.

[TomSlick]

14. Please see my post #13 above.

I think you are correct that the defendant (or his lawyers) think the SoCV license plate will convince at least some of the jurors that the defendant is a racist and will vote to convict for that reason alone. That's the problem. Any probative value of the SoCV license plate is overwhelmed by the potential for unfair prejudice.

I assume there is more than sufficient evidence to support an conviction without this bit of evidence. It is, in my opinion, unwise to risk a reversal on appeal by the admission of such marginally persuasive evidence. The goal is to put a murder in prison - and keep him there. That goal is best advanced by avoiding appellate issues at the trial level.

[Irish_Dem]

18. OK I understand your legal argument.

I am thinking like the jury, not the attorneys.

I think juries should have a right to information related to motive.

But I understand that legally some information is considered unduly prejudicial to the jury.

I don't happen to agree with that premise from a lay person's standpoint.
In my line of work, the more information I have, the better the decision making.

But I understand the legal system doesn't always act in a rational or logical way in an attempt to be fair.

[TomSlick]

19. May God forbid that the legal system ever make sense to nonlawyers.

If that is ever the case, what would be the use of folks like me?

[Irish_Dem]

20. Your job is quite secure Tom.

Non lawyers will never figure out the legal system!

[SYFROYH]

15. He helped run down Ahmaud in his car. So pictures of the car are relevant.

Last edited Wed Oct 6, 2021, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

eta: If it is true that he ran down Ahmaud with his and Ahmaud could see the front of his car with the flag on the plate, then I would think it is highly relevant.

The state's attorneys wrote that "the fact that defendant Travis McMichael knowingly, intentionally and purposefully attached a vanity plate to the front of his truck for all the world to see has nothing to do with the State's strategic decision regarding third party communications that show racial animus."

The attorneys continued, "Defendant Travis McMichael's choice, and the fact that this vanity plate was on the front of his pick-up truck on Feb. 23, 2020, are intrinsic evidence in this case and can be fully be used by the State to illustrate the intent and motive of Travis McMichael."
https://www.newsweek.com/ahmaud-arbery-murder-suspect-asks-court-bar-photo-his-confederate-flag-license-plate-1635681

I will say that the info that the plate was on the front of the truck is odd. GA doesn't require a front plate and I don't think it is an option.

[TomSlick]

17. It is odd the SoCV plate was on the front of the truck.

Nevertheless, this a license plate offered by the State of Georgia. It is a leap to conclude that the presence of the plate on the truck is evidence of any fact in dispute.

The judge may yet allow the evidence but in doing so, they would give the murderer an issue for appeal.

I am curious why the prosecutor is arguing for the introduction of the photograph. They surely know the photo is not terribly probative of the truth of any fact in dispute and that its admission would create a basis for appeal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. I've seen a report that it was the pre-2001 Georgia state flag

which was about two thirds Confederate Battle Flag, and one third Georgia state seal, rather than the SoCV license plate - and if it was on the front, then it's a personal statement rather than something offered by the state. I've also seen an argument that Arbery would have seen it, on the front, and therefore known these people trying to detain him were prejudiced, and thus he had a good reason to run away from them.

[MissMillie]

21. They wanted Arbery's mental health records

but they don't want any evidence presented that might paint their defendants as racists?

An unarmed black man runs away from armed, white men chasing him in a truck--and they wanted his mental health records.

But the defendants' motives are (according to them) off limits?