Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:01 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:01 pm

You're a **** cretin

So??

AS STATED, this has been ONGOING for YEARS and still NO REFILING OF THE CHARGERS, ****!!

Oh, and there is this you leave out because it SHOVES THAT BLOODY STUMP so far up your *** you will never get it out!!

"The State also moved to preclude evidence relating to William Botelho, an acquaintance of the defendant who had previously worked at the defendant’s Belmont property. During multiple interviews, Botelho had admitted to voting in the defendant’s name in Belmont during prior elections. The State posited that the defendant intended to use Botelho’s statements to assert an alibi defense for which the defendant had failed to provide notice. The defendant disputed the State’s characterization of Botelho’s statements as alibi evidence and, instead, asserted that Botelho’s statements constituted evidence of an alternative perpetrator. The defendant further contended that Botelho’s statements were admissible and requested a Richards hearing to address Fifth Amendment issues relating to Botelho’s potential testimony. The State responded that even if Botelho’s statements constituted alternative perpetrator evidence, the defendant had failed to provide notice of his intent to admit New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) prior bad acts evidence."

ADD TO THIS, the State's EVIDENCE to "convict" was BAD in that Mass of Two **** does NOT REQUIRE any ID to vote or to even get a BALLOT, ****!!

"Even if the evidence was relevant for non-propensity purposes, its probative value was low. The fact that Massachusetts does not requirein-personvoters to present photo identification when voting diminishes the probative value of this evidence regarding the defendant’s identity. See State v. Smith, 125 N.H. 522, 525 (1984)(“Evidence of prior acts offered to show that no mistake has been made regarding the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime is only relevant if the prior acts were acts of the defendant.”). In addition, the evidence carried little incremental probative value in light of other direct evidence that the defendant was registered to vote in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, filled out an absentee ballot in Holderness on November 3, 2016, and was checked off on the voter checklist in Belmont on November 8, 2016. We thus agree with the defendant thatevidence pertaining to prior elections “was cumulative and added little probative value.” "

So, you see, all your **** HATE for the SAVE Act would it have been LAW, would have TOTALLY prevented ANYONE other than the ACTUAL PERSON ON THE VOTER ROLLS from casting a ballot!! Which is what WE HAVE BEEN DEMANDING FOR DECADES!! NONE of this would have happened and NO ONE would be fighting this **** since the FACTS WOULD BE THERE AND INDISPUTABLE ONES AT THAT!!

Now, run along, **** and take this *** KICKING LIKE THE DOUCHE **** YOU ARE!!