Prosecutor Stone said in closing argument "Use your common sense." If I the I would have said "Objection, in evidence." entire case law and rules of designed specifically to prevent from using sense. Evidence only allowed which is consistent with a specific preconceived, articulated narrative. guess what happened, beyond what the tell you happened, because the rules of evidence are not designed help come to third conclusions by prosecution or defense. impossible, based on the evidence allowed, the jurors to ever Mandi's true motive for being Mulrenin's apartment. Strippers are when it to weed. For jurors, was cash or nothing. I lived in Miami before George shot Trayvon Martin. I teenagers from going punching strangers the face. It was a popular thing in a certain demographic. I even heard black teenager punch a in the face in the and then explain his the logic of why did it. I heard bone hit bone, tot crying, parents objecting, and a teenager explaining. If I were to use my "common sense" that is what I would say Trayvon Martin to George Zimmerman. But Judge blocked the from mentioning Trayvon’s reputation for punching And "the knockout game" in the national news yet, a jury would not heard of So Judge Nelson deprived jury the opportunity use common sense. But Mandi's jury was instructed by Stone to use common sense, though they knew about Mandi and Mulrenin than jurors about North Miami. Mandi's knew the specifics of evidence and testimony before the jury did not guilt beyond a doubt. According to Judge the defense is not allowed to question witnesses general present general evidence which might be relevant to understanding what happened. can only present true and items even in the vicinity of the crime, if they can articulate to the judge this information fits into the specific defense narrative of exactly what This presumes every defendant can have an all-knowing who is smarter than the defendant the judge every juror. The prosecution was not limited this way. The prosecution was to present ribs hollowed out organ donation, an address on with no known criminal use, and a receipt ring, no way to any narrative that Mandi planned or was a principal in a robbery, or that dead. We he bed drawer was filled viagra - blister packages, boxes, and pills in that could be fairly characterized as a reckless and careless. bedroom had blackout curtains. had antibiotic eye He punched the elevator button 8 times after the was closing, he rubbed his he almost bumped into a wall on his way to It may be that neither the female defendant, nor her female attorney, nor the female judge, had any idea caused blurred vision, tunnel vision, sensitivity to light, and retina damage. So cannot that narrative, to show evidence it to the jury. there could five men on the jury all experience with exactly those symptoms, and who in their "common sense" vision excessive viagra coud have contributed Mulrenin going over the balcony. Recksiedler would not have admitted any theory that Mulrenin went the because of The prosecution would have as "not in evidence." This is the same that said Mulrenin jumped from the fifth because he saw there was some soft he was about to be no such thing was in evidence. There cannot any rational reason to jump to your certain death from the fifth floor. Certainly not soft grass. So any medical theory, every drug, any should have been admitted, ahead of the argument which cannot supported by anything in evidence, that jumping was a conscious to something Scott Love or Mandi Jackson did. Did he fall because or did he jump from floors because there was soft grass? Recksiedler only wanted evidence to support one of those theories. It jurors bring some with them, such as an elevator works. What about that like weed, to a sufficient to explain motive for in apartment? Does a girl went law school know strippers like weed? Is it possible a girl on the jury would know more about strippers and more about illegal drugs and more about prostitution, than any of the in the room who argue about what evidence is relevant to understanding what happened? Is it a defense attorney could know client not guilty, but a could discover proof innocence which defense attorney never even IV-4l Mandi's were defense, not The evidence are jurors their common is You cannot lawyers you not promoted It was for guess at chimneys comes smoking the it Zimmerman saw black North Miami around in a toddler dark, to parents he black did Nelson defense people. was not Sanford have it. the of prosecutor even less Sanford know Because prosecutor the prove reasonable Recksiedler, on information, or They facts exactly how happened. attorney and and in allowed from paper for an engagement that in contributed Mulrenin was know is dead. Mulrenin's with loose broken - a way His He drops. door already eyes, and the curb. that viagra can they articulate of But be who have believe problems from to over balcony viagra. objected prosecution floor grass and shot, when be idea be rational reaction he was blind, five is assumed will knowledge how knowledge strippers level Mandi's being Mulrenin's who to that attorneys must possible his is juror still of the