CrimLaw

Malvo:

found here

The Defense wasn't allowed to introduce the letter to the jury wherein Malvo wrote (in reference to Muhammad) that Malvo had "a father who I know is going to have to kill me for a righteous society to prevail." The prosecutor had objected that "The letter is pure, unadulterated hearsay" - as opposed to the impure, adultrated kind of hearsay. That was a tough call for the judge. I think there is a legitimate argument for the "present state of mind" exception to the hearsay rule. It's a close question. Of course, she's the person who gets paid the semi-big bucks to make those decisions, not me.

The best article in the last 24 hour cycle is this one from the Washington Post. The Defense theme is the poisoning of Malvo's mind by Muhammad:

The defense also introduced a stack of more than 100 drawings Malvo has made during his year in the Fairfax County jail. Many are heroic portraits of such figures as Saddam Hussein, Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Gaddafi, and they include language such as "Stand up black men, just stand up together" and "I Lee will die for the revolution."

One drawing features a rifle sight on a police officer's head. Others are messages to Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr.; one says, "Wanted Horan dead." A drawing of the World Trade Center includes Osama bin Laden and the word "prophet." Another picture shows a rifle sight on the White House with a threat: "Sept. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you."

Yet another shows Malvo with a smiling Muhammad's arm around him, with the caption "Father and son."
. . .
In 1990, Muhammad was shipped to Saudi Arabia as the military prepared to move into Kuwait. He was assigned to an engineering squad headed by Sgt. Kip T. Berentson, who testified that as Muhammad's supervisor, he sometimes filed complaints about Muhammad's performance. He said Muhammad felt he was picking on him.

"Did he complain that this had some sort of racial tone?" Cooley asked. Berentson, who is white, said yes. He said Muhammad filed counter-complaints about Berentson, but none was substantiated.

In November 1991, an incendiary grenade was tossed into Berentson's tent. He said Muhammad was "suspected and removed [from the unit], but not convicted."

And here's probably the oddest story of the day. It seeks to inflate a psychiatric witness whom both the prosecutors in the Muhammad case and the Malvo case wanted to testify in their cases. He was not needed in the Muhammad case because Muhammad self-destructed his potential insanity defense by acting irrationally (Hmmmmm. . . ). In the Malvo case he was not allowed because of potential confidentiality conflicts between the two cases. The article asks why the Defense fought to keep him out of the trial. A better question might well be why both prosecutors wanted him so badly as their witness. I suspect both questions have the same answer: because both sides think he is entirely in the prosecutors' pocket.

And almost as strange: A Louisiana prosecutor is trying to arrange to have the snipers come to East Baton Rouge Parish for trial and he's promising that they'll get the death penalty down there.