thought of? Is that part of the right to a trial by jury? Or is your right to a trial by jury limited to what a lawyer can articulate, when there were not even public defenders at the time the Bill of Rights was written? What does the color of Mulrenin's dissected brain have to do with whether Mandi was a principal in a robbery? More than the fact that there was weed that was not taken from the apartment? An attorney has to be extraordinarily thoughtful and creative, and spend a lot of time, to think how every piece of evidence might be useful to any person in the jury to understand what happened. There are 12 jurors from all walks of life. It is safer to just show more evidence and err on the side of providing jurors everything that might be useful to them, than to assume attorneys have infinite wisdom, infinite creativity, and perfect communication, to determine and include exactly what is useful and what isn’t. But Judge Recksiedler does not see it that way. She clearly intends to restrict evidence in a way that deprives jurors of any opportunity to use their own common sense. In a circumstantial case, there may be key pieces of evidence that no attorney recognizes the significance of. But someone out of twelve jurors, with common and provincial knowledge, may see the significance. In circumstantial cases you need to show more evidence. Every item in Mulrenin's house, every item in every cabinet, is part of the murky circumstances surrounding his death. Everything could have something to do with what went on in there, if we don’t know what went on in there. But prosecutor Stone argued it was not a circumstantial case, because Mandi confessed to it. In Judge Recksiedler’s courtroom, a jailhouse witness can be totally discredited, and still change the outcome of a case by changing the narrative and Recksiedler’s preconceptions, and what evidence she allows or not. A jailhouse witness can literally say "What I am about to say is a lie, Mandi confessed to me that she used a knife." At that point, the prosecution is now allowed to show every knife in central Florida, because they have a narrative for it. If the defense wants to show a screwdriver in Mulrenin's drawer, Recksiedler wouldn’t allow it. I could lie on the stand and say I hid a camera in Mulrenin's apartment, I saw Mandi looking in the drawers. Everybody would know I was lying. It's not just that Mandi's lawyers are less shameless than prosecutor Stone and would never put me up there to do that. It's that they know Recksiedler still would not allow the defense to show what was in the drawer. If Recksielder would have allowed it, then Mandi's lawyers were ineffective in the game that Recksiedler created, by not introducing their own liar to affect what evidence was allowed. Millions of people have been shot for reasons other than robbery. Everyone accepted that Scott and not Mandi shot Mulrenin in the leg. Once Mulrenin went over the balcony, they could have stolen every item in his apartment without it being a robbery. We know Mandi is at the apartment, and she must have known the address to get there. The only evidence Mandi planned a robbery is that the jailhouse witness said she did. But even if the jailhouse witness is totally discredited, Judge Recksiedler allowed an address on a piece of paper because it corroborates the prosecution’s theory, introduced by a liar. If there is no lying jailhouse witness, there is no planned robbery theory to corroborate, and no use for the paper. If you want to argue with that, then you concede the outcome of the case is dictated by the outcome of an argument about what evidence the jury is prevented from seeing, and not by letting the jury weigh the facts. If the jury is limited to seeing only a small slice of the evidence as Scott and Mandi's juries were, then their decision is inherent in what few items of evidence they got to see. They had extreme tunnel vision. If the jury is limited to seeing specifically the crumbs of evidence that a defense attorney can win an argument with the judge to present, or even win an argument with an appeals judge, that is not trial by jury. That is trial by judge and lawyer. The jury should see all the evidence that has some possibility of being relevant, for it to be a trial by jury. That includes evidence which might create a bias such as evidence the victim was violent or used drugs. Because the defendant, not the victim, and certainly not any prosecution witness, is guaranteed a trial by jury under the Constitution. That includes evidence the defense attorney might be tongue-tied in explaining, but just has a hunch it is relevant. That includes every single piece of evidence in sight or in probable use in the room where the crime took place. It is not for the judge, or even for the lawyer, it is for the jury. Recksiedler allowed the jury to see a piece of paper from Mandi's bedroom with James Mulrenin's address on it, that nobody knows who wrote it or when or why. I think someone tried to use his credit card online and needed the billing address. The defense said it should be disallowed because there is no relevance or foundation without knowing where the address came from or how it was used. We already know and admit Mandi was at that address. Prosecutor Stone argued that because the note was on the same dresser where a gun was found in a closed drawer, IV-46