Andrew Torrez Opening Arguments

Update #9: An earlier version of the above sentence was false, as apparently the jury "seems to" consider the evidence. —

According to the affidavit supporting Michael Miller's release on a bench warrant, a number of the events described above were the reason for the warrant, including Miller's admission being "under the influence of a controlled substance" (Kilcullen).

See my new article here: Evidence: Argument and Practice

Update #8: Upon reviewing Justice Antonin Scalia's decision, I was encouraged to see evidence that was in direct contradiction of my argument. As such, I changed the entire description of the evidence for posterity, to highlight what evidence was in direct conflict with my argument, and what was in support of my argument.

First, let me reiterate what I wrote in my original post: I questioned the justice's logic and reasoning during his trial. That is, I pointed out that the prosecution did not present the evidence given to that point, and in fact the prosecution, after deliberating the evidence, stated that that this had been "bought" because of the witness' contradictory sworn trial testimony. (Update #6: Upon reviewing Justice Scalia's decision, I was encouraged to see evidence that was in direct contradiction of my argument. As such, I changed the entire description of the evidence for posterity, to highlight what evidence was in direct conflict with my argument, and what was in support of my argument.The affidavit supporting Michael Miller's release on a bench warrant, on this point:The prosecution did not present theevidence given to that point, and in fact the prosecution, after deliberating theevidence, stated that that this had been "bought" because of the witness' contradictory sworn trial testimony.Update #6: Upon reviewing Justice Scalia's decision, I was encouraged to see evidence that was in direct contradiction of my argument. As such, I changed the entire description of the evidence for posterity, to highlight what evidence was in direct conflict with my argument, and what was in support of my argument. It is interesting to note that both of these quotes from the motion to suppress evidence became outdated, right after he filed his briefs, with no actual evidence being presented.