Did Siale suppose that if he succeeded in killing the witness he would be in a
better situation than if he were to just sit there and let the witness testify?
Even assuming that his lawyer utterly fails to get the jury to doubt the
witness? Or did he think the odds were good of escaping the courtroom and
remaining at large?Or possibly Siale simply didn't evaluate the
consequences before resorting to violence? In which case I am reluctantly forced
to conclude that society will be better off without him.
It seems the attorney who defended the suspect is claiming that the witness has
credibility issues... May I just say that I think his client had much more then
just credibility issues.
Years ago I was on a jury involving homicide. The two defendants were clean cut
and dressed in shirt and tie. Incriminating evidence was eliminated because it
was hearsay. They were found guilty of only second-degree manslaughter. I
encountered their attorney years later. He informed me his client, after being
released, was now back in prison. The hearsay evidence was true and
incriminating. He said when he first met them they weren’t so clean cut.
Good job by the Marshalls.The defense attorney's protestations:
"The witness had a "personal bias" against Angilau and "highly
suspect" credibility, according to Angilau's attorney, Michael
Langford." just totally disgust me. The trial is over, and
there is no need for a lawyer to any longer try to twist obvious facts to sway a
jury. It is obvious to any unbiased observer that the accused who attacked the
witness in a courtroom was the one with "personal bias" and "highly
suspect credibility." We also need to rethink the policy of not
having violent criminals (based on prior convictions, not just current charges)
in shackles and handcuffs in courtrooms for fear of prejudicing the jury. Facts
are facts, and to present a false choir boy image is as big a prejudicial action
as shackling an accused with no prior convictions.
Defendants frequently think a witness testifying against them has a
"personal bias" against them. That's nothing new.IMO
the marshals did what needed to be done to protect the witness, the judge, the
jury, and everybody in the courtroom.
We can't pay these US Marshall's enough, job well done. One less gang
banger on the street!