More precisely, the central argument is that "too much evidence" -- of Holmes' bad conduct -- was admitted, and allowed to be shown to the jury, by the able USDC Judge Davila, in San Jose.
This is almost certainly -- a loser. [Don't misunderstand -- she has fine lawyers (just as Martin Shkreli does) -- it is just that in this case, on this evidence, her appeal is. . . essentially unwinnable (just as. . . Mr. Shkreli's is, in the Second Circuit).]
In a felony / criminal trial, the judge usually trusts the jury to be able to weigh how worthwhile various items in evidence are. And Ms. Holmes was given free reign to present exculpatory evidence -- in fact she testified for multiple days, in her own defense.
No, the most sensible reading of the jury's verdict is that. . . she was not credible on the stand, as compared to the various witnesses, and experts, and copious documents (some in her own hand) the AUSAs put on. And appellate courts rarely disturb jury verdicts -- since the upper court judges "were not in the courtroom, live", when the jury's assessments of credibility were made.
So. . . she is staying in Camp Bryan, Texas -- for more than a decade now. Bank on it.
Out.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment