Can we declare a misstrial if we present evidence of Charles being alive?
Or can Charles press charges and add to Scott's list of crimes?
Can we declare a misstrial if we present evidence of Charles being alive?
Or can Charles press charges and add to Scott's list of crimes?
The DEFENSE'S motion for a mistrial is denied.
Just because you murdered someone, and they "got better" later, doesn't mean you didn't murder them.
...
Your honor, I am asking for a dismissal of charges based on legal statute 3.1.1 of the State of California Penal Code: applied bias on the part of law enforcement.
On the date of May the Seventh in the year of our lord 2012, Law Enforcement officials under the banner of Captain Steven Rodgers asked for information regarding the defendant from James Howlett. We know now that Howlett gave misleading, if not false statements to law enforcement, a felony under California Penal Code 148.5. This meant that when law enforcement attempted arrest the defendant, they were operating with false information. I will cite the legal precedent of The People versus Daniel Gary Cook from 1984, in which Cook's charges of armed robbery were dismissed based on false information given in a Federal affidavit. These false charges brought about the chain of events culminating in the death of Charles Francis Xavier. I will also cite precedent in The People versus Orinthal James Simpson from 1996, in which the inadequacy of prosecution's manner of collecting evidence resulted in the jury deciding in a non-guilty charge.
Bias in this case can be proven with events in 2007, in which the same law enforcement team to which Captain Rodgers is a member, deployed anti-mutant weapons at the Xavier School in New York during the legal debate of the Superhuman Registration Act. This displays a clear level of bias by this agency against mutants, including the defendant who was head of that school at the time.
As a result, I am moving for a mistrial on the basis of law enforcement bias and poor legal standing.
Based on law enforcement's stated bias
Your honour, May I present that the defendant has been committing numerous of illegal acts leading up to the murder of Professor Charles Francis Xavier.
The defendant has encouraged children to participate in wars and battles. Hiring assassins to do his dirty work. The defendant has a history of endorsing violence. Hereby, him murdering Professor Xavier was not a moment of rage/or insanity. It reflects on his past actions and correlates well with his violent history.
He should be charged with manslaughter since he was psychically attacked but then, he sought out a weapon of mass destruction with full knowledge of its destruction.
P.S the defendant has disrespected our Vet. Captain Steven Rogers. Unacceptable.
Scott Summers’ mom didn’t carry him for 9 months just for him to disrespect Captain Rogers like that. Just Saying.
Thank you, Your honour
It was the Office of National Emergency (an American Agency) that deployed human operated mechanized battle suits designed to combat super-powered criminals to the Xavier Institute, not the Avengers (a United Nations sponsored paramilitary force) the two organisations are completely separate from each other.
The facts disagree. The Sentinels deployed to the Xavier Institute were StarkTech Mk VIIs created by SHIELD under the authority of Anthony Stark and deployed by SHIELD (also piloted by SHIELD agents). They were deployed under the guise of protecting the remaining mutants after the Maximoff Incident.