Jury is back from lunch. Closing arguments are starting.
State begins with the usual sucking up to the jury. Proceeds to say the defendant went into an underground garage (which is misleading because its only underground from some sides of the street but the entrance/exit and where everything happened is ground level. He proceeds to show video of the cops breaking the chains at the front doors to the admin building and explains that the police did this to protect people (building was empty) and for fear of what happened to the library (weeks before this).
On the TV screen we can see he is checking off boxes and presenting to the jury a definition for Trespass II- He has highlighted the first line which says "knowingly enters or remains on property"
He then highlights the line that says "not open to the public" and is listing off reasons why he believes the defendant knew it was not open to the public. He is citing the building being locked as proof of this even though the parking garage is whats in question here.
Now he is showing a map which highlights the route from the defendants apartment to the admin building/parking garage?? This is so odd... unclear what his point even was.
He then highlights the third and final line while defining trespassing, which says they remained "after a lawful order to vacate"
Alissa Azar
npub1h9…6fkmf
2025-01-23 21:46:24 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…l4m4
Author Public Key
npub1h9qctam4yx52r34puvygmn7qffnrpffmtkunr3hpse8paq3g2pmqv6fkmfPublished at
2025-01-23 21:46:24 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "3ab4f57626a7f84ba13129d6d5549efc7c0edc1e7f56baf767dff8167e620c37",
"pubkey": "b94185f77521a8a1c6a1e3088dcfc04a6630a53b5db931c6e1864e1e82285076",
"created_at": 1737668784,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"b94185f77521a8a1c6a1e3088dcfc04a6630a53b5db931c6e1864e1e82285076"
],
[
"e",
"e5308a9a6113cad06401e2e388f51676775544c48d838d6fda72d5dbaf9ef27c",
"",
"root",
"b94185f77521a8a1c6a1e3088dcfc04a6630a53b5db931c6e1864e1e82285076"
],
[
"e",
"a30dbd2066e0f648eb4e71b15114ede71c2227fb5da4cb6d65d715f8e8b87294",
"",
"reply",
"b94185f77521a8a1c6a1e3088dcfc04a6630a53b5db931c6e1864e1e82285076"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://kolektiva.social/@alissaazar/113879861457410541",
"web"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://kolektiva.social/users/alissaazar/statuses/113879861457410541",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://kolektiva.social/users/alissaazar/statuses/113879861457410541",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "Jury is back from lunch. Closing arguments are starting. \n\nState begins with the usual sucking up to the jury. Proceeds to say the defendant went into an underground garage (which is misleading because its only underground from some sides of the street but the entrance/exit and where everything happened is ground level. He proceeds to show video of the cops breaking the chains at the front doors to the admin building and explains that the police did this to protect people (building was empty) and for fear of what happened to the library (weeks before this). \n\nOn the TV screen we can see he is checking off boxes and presenting to the jury a definition for Trespass II- He has highlighted the first line which says \"knowingly enters or remains on property\"\n\nHe then highlights the line that says \"not open to the public\" and is listing off reasons why he believes the defendant knew it was not open to the public. He is citing the building being locked as proof of this even though the parking garage is whats in question here. \n\nNow he is showing a map which highlights the route from the defendants apartment to the admin building/parking garage?? This is so odd... unclear what his point even was. \n\nHe then highlights the third and final line while defining trespassing, which says they remained \"after a lawful order to vacate\"",
"sig": "3b56ecf090b2ba16f6fe71f83693af12755634c4cbf8412a6817319ae799dec1cd08fdcd14acf69248fddb354db1c7f1832bc7a3ae400be6982bef0b033e9d6a"
}