Wild guess that will be wrong, but he goes either 3/3 or 0/3

Beyond.a.reasonable.doubt

Just don't think they're going to say "well, we can't say he shot meg but we do think he was negligent and he's guilty of carrying a loaded and unregistered firearm"

Nail him for all 3 or none at all

I think he’s defo getting a gun charge, the other 2 I don’t know

i mean maybe the firearm charge? i don't know too much about that part of the case but couldn't they say it was his gun but we don't know what happened that night with it

Verdict tmr?

They never actually proved that the gun was his. And since the Driver never testified, it could have been his.

The DNA on the gun was inconclusive

And this is where beyond a reasonable doubt comes in.

I think the aggravated assault is an easy NG and if you can't prove that it was his gun, you can probably get a NG out of the carrying a loaded and unregistered firearm charge too because... well how do we know it was his beyond a reasonable doubt?

The negligent charge is the one. It's the one they added last minute, and the one the prosecution probably feels strongly about.

• "California Penal Code 246.3. It states it is a crime for a person to willfully discharge a firearm in a grossly negligent manner andshooting it could have resulted in great bodily injury or the death of another individual."
  -and they asked about the definition of willfully today. Sounds like this may be the one they're not quite sure on? And then they asked for Kelly's testimony which suggest them trying to see if Tory willfully and with intent fired away that night.

under 8

I hear you, that makes sense. Do you think that, for the sake of argument, they get a conviction on the assault and the discharge, they could still not get the gun charge (it could have been someone else's gun)? I guess now that I write it out though that seems like a stretch, especially for a jury. I think you're right it's likely 3/3 or 0/3

Yeah I'm thinking about it

There's not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot meg, and that it was his gun

The last charge they threw there will come down to how they view Kelly's testimony, and what the actual definition of Willfully and intent they receive tomorrow

Still think it's 3/3 or 0/3

I am a patient butterfly

I don't think there's a chance in hell they find him guilty of those two charges and not the gun charge. His driver, his security that night, etc. nah

That's why the aggravated assault verdict is so vital. Because if that's a NG, then it's a sliding doors moment and you can get to the gun not being his (inconclusive DNA, multiple potential profiles on it, residue from it on multiple ppl, etc.) pretty easily too. The last charge is the charge but at that point, you just need 1 person to not be convinced of Kelly's testimony, given that he said he didn't see a gun and did see a gun at the same time.

But this is why I think it's either 3/3 or 0/3. Because if you don't think Tory fired the shot(s) that ended up injuring Meg, are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired any at all? With Kelly's testimony of saying he both saw and didn't see a gun with Tory?

The same way Trump was a stupid incompetent man and the greatest evil mastermind in US history. People don't know nuance it's baffling

Shambles soon!

This where I’m at. He’s either not guilty on all 3, or not guilty for 2 of the counts but guilty on the negligent. Leaning towards the latter even tho the negligent is a BS charge but I think it’ll stick

This post is Jaden Smith Twitter level of frying my brain
The nerve to add (usually) at the end like what do you mean

Not sure how you get to beyond a reasonable doubt on that either if he himself had conflicting statements about what he saw in regards to the gun. So 3/3? @gabapentin

Are there any video recaps?

The definition of negligent is literally almost verbatim what Kelly said he saw Tory doing.

The problem is, his testimony didn't make sense when it came to the shooting lol

He said he saw the girl shoot first, but said he saw Tory shoot wildly 4 to 5 times with his hands above his head. That's impossible, as the gun only went off 5x and they went off like "BamBamBam (pause) BamBam" he also said he didn't see a gun as well?

Proving BEYOND a reasonable doubt with that kind of contradiction would be kind of weird? I don't think any of the charges meet the burden of proof but I aint a lawyer lol

That’s incredibly different

You don’t have to be the greatest mastermind ever to undermine US democracy. And Trump was factually very powerful and also stupid.

Tory can’t be both of the things he’s being called at once. It’s a direct contradiction

Fr fr

yeah Kelly's testimony seems very confused, understandably since it was some s*** he saw in a tense moment over two years ago which he didn't exactly try to commit to memory for the purpose of being a witness in december of 2022

i really couldn't say how the jury interpreted it, if they asked for it to be read back to them they must have found it important in some way

perhaps, with his confusion, they only focused on the parts they think are in line with the rest of the evidence that they find important and assumed that the stuff he brought up that nobody else mentioned at all was just his memory settling on something bizarre two years later

it all depends on what of the evidence they find convincing (by definition, no s***, i know)... if they think his testimony seals the deal that there is no way to say beyond a reasonable doubt that we know tory did what he's being accused of, that would make sense to me

Witness said he fired multiple shots in the air so he def could get hit wit reckless firing charge

It all depends on how much the value the inconclusive evidence on the DNA

You can go to Milagro's (biased towards Tory) instagram for vivid details and all the questions asked.

instagram.com/milagrogramz/reels

or

You can go to Moe Gangat. He offers less detail but is more neutral.

instagram.com/lawyerforworkers/reels

Witness also said he didn’t see any gun at all though

By definition that’s kind of reasonable doubt. We don’t know if he actually saw a gun or not

But common sense tells you that he just f***ed up a bit and probably did see a gun.

Gonna come down to what’s the definition they get for “intent” and “willfully.”

imma reiterate that they specifically asked for definitions of "willfully" and "on purpose"

the phrase "on purpose" doesn't appear in the penal code, but it does appear in the jury instructions that the State of California provides for an alleged violation of section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon. in this case a "semiautomatic weapon")

justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/800/875

The second element is that "The defendant did the act willfully," and "Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose",

So I do think the jury asked for clarification about "willfully" and ":on purpose" as part of their deliberation on the assault charge

And again, if they're at that stage, that means they are at least seriously considering the possibility that he did do the act, just maybe not willfully. I think if they can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it willfully, he might get an an NG on that charge even if the jury thinks he was the one who shot meg (I guess by mistake)