Judge cuts off Ryan Routh minutes into opening statement
BPR:
FORT PIERCE, Fla. — Judge Aileen Cannon cut off Ryan Routh minutes into his opening statement as he diverged into criticizing Vladimir Putin and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and how we are “doing nothing” in response to their actions.
Routh took jurors on a journey through human existence beginning “5.2 million years ago,” questioning how we became “so filled with hate.”
“Modern trials seem to eliminate all that is human,” he said, emphasizing intent is what matters.
“Why are we here?” he said. “What is our intent every day?”
Cannon asked Routh if any of the subjects in his opening statement concerned evidence relating to his case. Routh replied his remarks would focus on peacefulness, non-violence and gentleness. more
See Also:
Routh : “It all began back in Grade School…I used to hang back during recess,
and eat all of the other Children’s Paste”
Judge: “Bailiff , whack His Peepee!”
Stella W. Sylva are you still fucking your brother?
Am I correct in assuming this turd blossom is defending himself? So tired of hearing about this idiot – can we just get to the execution part already?
Just to clarify what Judge Cannon did, an opening statement is not argument – it is a road map of what a plaintiff or defendant intends to prove. A collorary to the opening statement is the general rule that only relevant evidence is admissible. The issue involved in this case is straight forward: did Routh engage in trying to assassinate Donald Trump? General societal or historical peacefulness, non-violence and gentleness is not relevant to this issue. Intent is relevant, but only to the extent that Routh may try to assert a self-defense argument or similar defense. While trial judges do give litigants leeway in opening argument, straying into irrelevancy or pure argument will get the litigant cut off.
Intent is an element of these particular charges, and Routh can discuss what he intends to prove with regard to his intent in this case. Intent is generally proved or not proved by circumstantial evidence, but Judge Cannon will not allow Routh (or anyone else) to try to prove intent of general peacefulness, non-violence or gentleness of others or society as a whole as this is not relevant.
Routh may be trying to set up an insanity defense, but an insanity defense is generally very limited – to oversimplify the defendant must be capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) can allege that his dog told him to kill people, and this may constitute insanity. John Hinckley was convinced that Jodie Foster would love him if he shot Ronald Reagan, and this underpinned an insanity defense. On the other hand, Charles Manson ranted and raved about class wars and other nonsense, but he knew right from wrong and was convicted of murder. Routh knew what he was doing, knew it was wrong, and I don’t think any insanity defense would fly – there are hundreds if not thousands of criminal defendants who believe that acting nuts in court will result in an insanity defense only to be found legally sane and guilty.
Obviously these issues are far more complicated than presented here, but this is the bare bones explanation. Judge Cannon will likely give Routh some leeway in order to forestall potential issues on appeal, but I believe Routh knows his defense has no merit and will try to turn the proceedings into a circus for his own amusement.
I feel like I’m living in a Vonnegut novel.
Let me get this straight: The man who sat in a sniper blind with a rifle and whose only reason for being there was to assassinate our president (with a gun and bullets) is expounding on peace, non-violence, and gentleness?
Court: “Prove to the court that you’re insane.”
Routh: “I’m a heterosexual, white, male US citizen, and I’m a democrat.”
Court: “Yeah, you’re insane.”
His insanity is very offensive, so how can it be a defense?
If only the Secret Service had better firearms training, we wouldn’t have to suffer through this. Six shots, six misses.