this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
181 points (88.5% liked)

Not The Onion

16508 readers
1611 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement

So first of all I guess all that stuff in the video about forgiveness wasn't really a factor. I'm just fascinated who called for this? Like was it the prosecution? In what context? Was this part of their closing arguments? Did the defense not object? So many questions.

You have to wonder if this is not grounds for an appeal.

[–] goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly, if I'm the defense, this has gotta be awesome, right? Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I have watched Boston Legal twice, so that's basically the same thing, and what I'm hearing is these people want to get up on the stand and show the jury a video which either:

A) to the particularly inattentive, shows the victim clearly alive, or

B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests

Barring the staggeringly unlikely event that the defendant goes full-on Perry Mason Perp and outright says "hey, sorry I killed you, man" to the hologram, this seems like a pretty sweet deal.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 4 weeks ago

B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests

It's a victim impact statement. It's not evidence. Victim Impact Statements are provided/read/whatever AFTER the finding of guilt, but before sentencing.

load more comments (7 replies)