Ahmaud Part 5: The Other Trespassing Videos

So there are two videos by S. Lee Merrit that he is using to make his case against the shooter:

NEW VIDEO shows there were frequent visitors on the construction site where Ahmaud was seen leaving on the day he was killed both day & night. Ahmaud Arbery seems to be the only one who was presumed to be a criminal and ultimately the only one murdered based on that presumption. pic.twitter.com/8tTwKPsck0

— S. Lee Merritt, Esq. (@MeritLaw) May 15, 2020

And

More alleged “trespassers” entering the construction site where Ahmaud Arbery was last seen before his murder. These children were not implicated in any crimes due to their presence at this location.

No white person ever was. pic.twitter.com/ezLfDwXB39

— S. Lee Merritt, Esq. (@MeritLaw) May 15, 2020

I think that the use of these clips by the state will probably backfire. Here's why:

The use of these clips would be to show that the shooter specifically targeted Ahmaud because he was a black trespasser rather than a white one. The problem would be that the state would be engaging in mind reading. If the state cannot show evidence of that such as a phone call or other direct witnesses who say something to the effect of "we gonna wait till this nigger comes back", it's going to be extremely hard to make that case.

The defense however would likely do the following:

1) The would object immediately on grounds of relevance. Arguing that these individuals are not the victim, related to the victim or on the premises with the victim at that time.

The state's mistake would be to say that it IS relevant to show pattern of behavior under similar circumstances. Therefore putting such an argument into play.

Let's assume the objection is overruled, now comes the questioning:

2) For each video are you certain that my client actually observed these events? Are you certain that my clients were even home at the time of these events?

If the answer to either of these questions is "no" then there cannot be any "proof" that the shooter acted differently (and with malice) towards Ahmaud than to any other suspected trespasser because Ahmaud was the only one seen by the shooter on the scene.

In other words, that other people have been traipsing through the property and lived to tell about it, doesn't mean the one who gets caught gets a pass. That would be like getting caught stealing something from a store (not saying Ahmaud was a thief) and arguing that since other people did it and nothing happened, you should get away with it too.

Which brings me to a point that I forgot to cover before. There is a report in possesion of the police that Ahmaud had been seen on the property before and that he was run off by the shooter and another neighbor with a Spanish surname. This is actually an important point. If Ahmaud was run off the property (or ran off when he saw the neighbors coming) then the claim that he had not criminally trespassed is null and void. This is simply because once you've been run off a piece of property, you know that future "visits" are not permitted and doing so is in fact criminal trespass.

So when this neighbor is called to testify, if he does testify to this effect, the suspicion of criminal trespass is going to be supported and grounds for reasonable doubt.

And to remind the reader: Reasonable doubt IS the threshold the state must cross. Reasonable doubt is NOT "more likely than not"(51%) as seen in civil cases. 90% of the case can make a defendant look guilty. If that 10% is reasonable, then the defendant walks.