Very good article on the merits of the guilty verdict in the Perry conviction. Branca is not some left wing Soros lawyer but a self defense advocate and considered an expert in self defense litigation. In the article he states: "Like It or Not, sufficient evidence was presented to allow the jury to reject self-defense. A Pardon may happen for political reasons, but that’s politics not law." My feelings exactly.
He contends that the defense could not establish that the rifle was ever pointed at Perry and the only evidence presented at trial was that he did not.
He believes that Perry probably should have testified and postulates that a possible reason that he did not was that there were other incriminating posts by Perry that did not come in because they were to prejudicial but could have if he took the stand.
He even postulates as I have that:
"A sound argument could be made that Garrett Foster was the rifle-armed Kyle Rittenhouse on that fatal night in Austin, going about armed not to commit unlawful acts but for purposes of defense of himself and other protestors, and that Daniel Perry was the Joseph Rosenbaum of that night, seeking out a deadly force confrontation.
In this case, of course, Foster lost his gunfight with Perry—but had Foster reacted quickly to Perry’s presentation of his pistol and shot Perry first, killing him, would Foster be in much a different legal position than that of Kyle Rittenhouse with respect to Rosenbaum?"
There is much more in the article and I strongly suggest that if you are truly interested in knowing if the jury made a sound decision in this case based on evidence to give it a read.
Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound
He contends that the defense could not establish that the rifle was ever pointed at Perry and the only evidence presented at trial was that he did not.
He believes that Perry probably should have testified and postulates that a possible reason that he did not was that there were other incriminating posts by Perry that did not come in because they were to prejudicial but could have if he took the stand.
He even postulates as I have that:
"A sound argument could be made that Garrett Foster was the rifle-armed Kyle Rittenhouse on that fatal night in Austin, going about armed not to commit unlawful acts but for purposes of defense of himself and other protestors, and that Daniel Perry was the Joseph Rosenbaum of that night, seeking out a deadly force confrontation.
In this case, of course, Foster lost his gunfight with Perry—but had Foster reacted quickly to Perry’s presentation of his pistol and shot Perry first, killing him, would Foster be in much a different legal position than that of Kyle Rittenhouse with respect to Rosenbaum?"
There is much more in the article and I strongly suggest that if you are truly interested in knowing if the jury made a sound decision in this case based on evidence to give it a read.
Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound
