the note implied that address was written down in an advance plan to go shoot someone at that address. But remember, there were many items in closed drawers and cabinets at that address, such as needles and marijuana and testosterone and things no one will ever know about. Literally any item in a closed drawer at Mulrenin’s address could be contemplated as a reason for writing it down. The defense asked to show marijuana at Mulrenin's address which he could have been selling, and they wrote down his address to go buy it. Judge Recksiedler would not allow the jury to see marijuana at that address. The jury was barred by the judge, from contemplating alternate totally invented reasons for writing down Mulrenin's address, other than the cash hidden a balcony closet which Mandi could not have known was there. The loose marijuana and pipe on the kitchen counter were part of a constellation of evidence that showed why Mandi put on a jacket, why neighbors heard arguing, whether Mulrenin went over the balcony in a struggle as Madara claimed, whether Mandi tricked Mulrenin into to taking her home as alleged, and whether the apartment was ransacked as Kaylee claimed. Why did Mandi put on a jacket? Because it was cold. Why was it cold? Because the balcony door was open before dawn in December. Why was the balcony door open? Because the smoke detector was disabled on the table, meaning the place was filled with smoke. Why was the place filled with smoke? Because that is how much marijuana use goes on in Mulrenin's apartment. So much, that the same neighbor who testified hearing a commotion, testified smelling marijuana for years. Even though it is smoked out of sight, in the opposite end of the apartment. Therefore the commotion the neighbor heard, like the marijuana he smelled, was not on the balcony. It was inside, and possibly on the opposite end of the apartment in the kitchen or at the front door. Mulrenin did not test positive for marijuana. Why was Jackson, all by herself, smoking so much marijuana that Mulrenin gave to her, to set off the fire alarm? Why, when her intention was to trick him and commit a robbery? Do you trick a man, by letting him feed you so much marijuana that you set off a fire alarm and freeze? Was there something in the apartment other than cash, that could be of value to Mandi, that she knew was there, that could be her motive for being there? Something right in the kitchen that she didn't take when she left? Not so far as the jury knows, the judge won't allow it. Mulrenin tested positive for recent cocaine use, not fully metabolized. There was a mess of loose cocaine hastily stashed in the room where he was supposedly murdered, and many full and empty bags. Love's lawyers wanted to include these plain facts in their narrative by showing a picture of the cocaine, and say Mulrenin was doing cocaine that night. The prosecution wanted to block this, on the idea that unless a jailhouse witness claims Mulrenin confessed to doing cocaine in the room with Scott and Mandi, he could have done it before they came or some other place or time or who knows what. Without a jailhouse witness, it is impossible to say Mulrenin did cocaine that night. Recksiedler said of the cocaine in Mulrenin's blood and kitchen "There was no evidence of whose it was." But Recksiedler allowed one picture of cocaine, after much objection. Later in the trial, the prosecution wanted to show a blurry partial picture of a credit card that fell on the floor of a car in another county five days later. It was totally immaterial to the matter in dispute, that Scott Love robbed James Mulrenin. It contributed not even a crumb of extra support to the prosecution’s narrative. They had video of Love using Mulrenin's credit cards, and a wallet with Mulrenin's credit cards and a picture of Love's son, among many other things. The credit card had nitrous cartridges on the floor next to it. The same Judge Recksiedler who had to be begged on hands and knees to show any drugs at the scene where Mulrenin was supposedly murdered, had zero hesitation to show drugs in the defendant's car another time and place. Her argument sounded like she was stoned. Alison Smolarek, who took the unclear photo of the drugs on the floor next to the credit card, had just referred to bullets as "cartridges." A juror who saw the drug picture from the car asked what the "cartridges" on the floor were. The court did not allow the question to be answered. So in fact, they misled at least one juror that there were bullets on the floor of the car, to save the case from being reversed for showing irrelevant illegal activity by the defendant. Judge Recksiedler allowed every piece of evidence that could possibly contribute to an opinion the defendant was guilty. That was her standard of relevance for the prosecution. More simply, she allowed every piece of evidence the prosecution wanted, that could show the defendant in a bad light. I cannot think of any item the prosecution wanted that was disallowed. The prosecution was never pressed to articulate how something that happened at a pawn shop several days later, was evidence that Mandi was a principal in a planned burglary. The prosecution only argued that it was relevant to show Mandi used Mulrenin's cards at Walmart. It had already been proven very IV-47