Found out when I got off a plane this morning that Invictus was found guilty.
I am heartbroken for him.
But seems like it all flowed downstream from not getting the prosecutor and judges removed, like Frazier did in the Dix case.
If I remember correctly, there was a slight deviation from what Frazier did: by saying, "No" when asked if Judge Worrell's wife might be called as a witness. It was her involvement that got the circuit judges recused. Instead Invictus got saddled with a very biased Judge Moore, who shouldn't have been on the bench for this case.
The answer to whether the judge's wife would be a witness should have been, "Yes!" because that is the link in the chain to cause the recusals.
But because Invictus' attorney didn't do that it set off a chain of bad things, including terrible jury instructions that instructed jurors Invictus could be guilty for the actions of others under "concert of action."
Jacob had the "concert of action instruction" but he also had one stating that "an individual can only be found guilty based on their own actions" and that "free speech protects the right to demonstrate and speak." Those gave the jury a legal rationale to acquit which Invictus didn't have.
Invictus has indicated his intent to appeal.
I am heartbroken for him.
But seems like it all flowed downstream from not getting the prosecutor and judges removed, like Frazier did in the Dix case.
If I remember correctly, there was a slight deviation from what Frazier did: by saying, "No" when asked if Judge Worrell's wife might be called as a witness. It was her involvement that got the circuit judges recused. Instead Invictus got saddled with a very biased Judge Moore, who shouldn't have been on the bench for this case.
The answer to whether the judge's wife would be a witness should have been, "Yes!" because that is the link in the chain to cause the recusals.
But because Invictus' attorney didn't do that it set off a chain of bad things, including terrible jury instructions that instructed jurors Invictus could be guilty for the actions of others under "concert of action."
Jacob had the "concert of action instruction" but he also had one stating that "an individual can only be found guilty based on their own actions" and that "free speech protects the right to demonstrate and speak." Those gave the jury a legal rationale to acquit which Invictus didn't have.
Invictus has indicated his intent to appeal.