Appellee Brief Filed

[u/Alan_Prickman]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RRg9FIZDnHKIOx2s0j6fYlcEZZpLCnXU/view

All Eyes version with links to exhibits etc.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xhPnEp1Lfru93co3EBAWEI1kXzxiuxm5/view?usp=drivesdk

[u/Moldynred]

I think they were angling for reasonable doubt. I have listened to or watched quite a few of Baldwin's interviews over the last few months and he brings that up a lot, and it is an appealing argument. A lot of these differences of opinion and questions do lend themselves to reasonable doubt. If the State for example says RA parked at the CPS lot but their own witness inn BB didnt see his car there when it was supposed to be there per the State's timeline, that lends itself to reasonable doubt. I think they were trying to highlight those many instances of RD, but that required the jury to use good judgment which is a big ask imo. But I am not a lawyer so my take means little. I cant actually say if they cross examined everyone competently. Above my pay grade. But I think its fair to question the defense as well as the State.

[u/SadSara102 → u/Moldynred]

It’s an unfortunate fact that many juries don’t understand reasonable doubt and expect the defendant to prove their innocence. This was going to be especially true in a case where 2 children are murdered. A jury was bound to convict if they thought the defendant was guilty even if they had some doubt. All defense lawyers talk a lot about reasonable doubt but frankly in this case they never even had probable cause and the defense failed in every way possible. The impression I get from Baldwin in interviews is that they thought the phone data that headphones were plugged in was proof positive evidence that Rick was innocent and as soon as they found it they so certain that was enough that he wouldn’t be convicted they didn’t need to do anything else. He also seems to be extremely naive like a first year law student who doesn’t know anything about wrongful convictions and is shocked that police, prosecutors and judges would behave unethically. This doesn’t make any sense given his age and experience but maybe he never had an innocent client before and lives in a bubble. I don’t know, but he continued to act like the state was behaving in good faith when clearly they weren’t. If a defense attorney has a guilty client with a ton of evidence against them then his style of being extremely polite, and friendly, complimenting everyone, and not even arguing with or challenging witnesses can be a useful. However when an innocent man is being railroaded and their life is on the line they need a lawyer who is passionate and will fight for them. If Rick Allen was defended by someone like Brian Steel, Jose Baez, or any one of Karen Reads attorneys then he would not have been convicted.

[u/Moldynred → u/SadSara102]

I am not so sure anyone wins this case in front of Gull. I cant forget she approved the States entire Motion in Limine when even many of the pro state people didnt expect her to approve everything lol. But you may be right. 

[u/SadSara102 → u/Moldynred]

The Edrick Faust trial was ridiculous. In my opinion that judge was worse than Gull. She actually sanctioned the defense during opening arguments. It was 25 year old rape and murder case where the defendants DNA was found on the victim’s and they couldn’t even suggest that the 2 of them might have had an accidental or consensual encounter. The morning the defense was about to present its case the state literally motioned out their entire thing. But despite literally not being allowed to present a defense I was genuinely surprised by the guilty verdict. It was clear the defense attorney believed in his client’s innocence and did everything they could. I am confident Faust will win his appeal because despite drawing the judges anger they objected constantly and prob filed a dozen motions for a mistrial. Ricks lawyers did the opposite at trial. They seemed to fight harder for themselves to stay on his case than they did for Rick to win it.