I completely agree with you. It’s difficult because defendant with indicted for manslaughter, so the DA would need to request a new grand jury to try to get the charge added. It seems like TCA § 39-13-202 (first) could possibly apply due to a gun being brought and TCA § 39-13-210 (second) could easily apply since it only requires knowledge, not intent to kill. What’s strange about this situation to me is I don’t feel like the appeals court was being transphobic, but it feels like not having the trial include TCA § 39-13-210 (second) is very questionable if he was asked to leave and may either involve transphobia from the DA or the grand jury (and it’s possible the grand jury was given the option for TCA § 39-13-210 and rejected it). I stand by the view that it was procedurally wrong to not allow a defendant to testify about their relationship, including that he liked trans women, his subjective views and concerns, and let a jury decide based on that. I am also not entirely sure if a new indictment can be done and then merged with a remanded case that was remanded for a new trial. I don’t think Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) would apply since he was never charged with murder, this is a fairly difficult technical procedural question. It looks like they possibly can? (State of Tennessee v. Brandon Robert Vandenburg (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019), https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2019/m2017-01882-cca-r3-cd.html) It may not matter because the DA is unlikely to consider it. I hope they do add charges. If she was telling him to leave, that’s really a low amount of time. I’m not that familiar with Tennessee law.

So it’s memory-safe coding for something that will output JavaScript anyway and it’s really hard and tedious for Claude to change over. I get it now!

this

Why is that funny? I hate being so technically illiterate.

I think it’s a fair point, and there’s probably not good genuine unbiased studies comparing things like reflex times, aggression levels in confrontations, and other issues.

To me, it seems wrong in a self-defense case (which almost requires a defendant to testify) to not allow a defendant to just talk about what happened. Defendant may have not known if the victim was consistently taking HRT, how long HRT was being used and how often, and more than that, Defendant should just be able to talk about things without his testimony being deemed illegal for saying the wrong thing about an ongoing relationship of a sexual nature. It’s also hard to know with a victim (who is dead) if they were taking HRT consistently.

This was a defendant who clearly was sexually drawn to trans women. The jury is probably going to hate him too if they are bigots and he testifies and juries like to convict.

So let the defendant present their defense and then if that’s what happened, the jury will see it and convict.

Also, I am just realizing now defendant was never even charged with murder. That’s surprising. I would have thought he would have at least been charged with that so the jury could weight it.

It’s not a trans panic case if defendant was fucking trans woman over and over and over again. This is not a situation where defendant suddenly discovered the victim was trans.

Kayla Gore, executive director of the emergency services nonprofit My Sistah’s House, told Erin in the Morning that Ward had pursued trans women in the past.

This defendant liked fucking trans women. And apparently, he was scary to some of them, allegedly. That means he was creepy and possessive possibly, it does not mean he didn’t realize she was trans, found out, and panicked, thereby removing culpability somehow.

Defendants not being able to speak about all kinds of things to a jury is EXACTLY what is wrong with society. A defendant, on the stand, should be able to say whatever the hell they want, especially in cases that carry decades in prison. If the defendant is guilty, the DA should be able to bring that out on cross.

I also already think jurisprudence in the USA has gone down a dangerous path where more and more rights of defendants are systematically being removed. You see this all the time in cases: defendants can’t argue this, they aren’t allowed to present that, anyone on the jury pool who is black is removed, anyone who knows someone close who has been arrested gets removed, defendants rights are violated over and over and it’s “harmless.” The only jury left supports police and is a certain kind of jury and the only arguments that can be made to a jury are former-DA-turned-judge approved. It’s atrocious. (And please don’t tell me removing black jurors is actually illegal; it happens anyway all the time.)

I didn’t say we aren’t already on the path.

This was a defendant in an ongoing sexual relationship with a trans woman. No one is alleging trans panic when defendant kept coming back for more.

That’s not the actual ruling at all.

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf

It’s a dangerous and scary path to go down to make it illegal for a defendant to present their side of things. This was the correct ruling, and there will possibly be a conviction on retrial.

That’s you. Some people keep guns with them at all times for safety or because they just like guns. If you read the actual ruling, you’ll see Defendant didn’t even get a chance to testify honestly from their perspective when they were trying to put on a self-defense theory. That’s actually unfair, even if you like trans women and support trans women.

I support trans women and…

This was a defendant who knew the victim well. They were in an ongoing sexual relationship. The trial court made it very difficult for the defendant to discuss their relationship or concerns about being hurt during alleged self-defense. And that was defendant’s entire legal defense! And he couldn’t talk about it! Even if too many trans women are being killed, this is not an unfair or bad appellate ruling.

Defendants should be able to present defenses to a jury. This is absolutely not transphobia for the court to rule this way. It’s entirely possible Defendant chose to not testify because of this ruling. In a self-defense case!

The ruling: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf

According to the ruling:

At the pretrial hearing on the State’s motion, defense counsel expressed concern that if the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s biological sex, it would impact Defendant’s ability to present a defense and his right to testify. Defense counsel stated that if Defendant chose to testify, he would be in a position to have to lie to the jury, “either by omission or just a straight-out lie.”

So defendant was allowed to testify, but couldn’t mention that the victim was trans at all. It’s not right. Defendants should be able to present their side of things.

from the actual ruling:

Logically, courts allow evidence of the physical characteristics of the victim and defendant when evaluating the “reasonableness” and “imminent danger” requirements of a self-defense claim. Here, Defendant argues the “differences in strength and power between a biological man and a woman of the same weight cannot be denied.” In other words, there are physical differences between a biological male who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds and a biological female who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds. The trial court determined that because the victim was armed, evidence of her biological sex was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. We disagree.

While a gun might equalize differences in physical strength and size, there are other inherent physiological differences between the sexes that science continues to reveal and that we choose not to ignore. A detailed discussion is not necessary for our analysis; it suffices to acknowledge that these differences exist. However significant or insignificant these differences are, the Tennessee Rules of Evidence set the threshold test for relevance low: evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401, Advisory Comm’n Cmt. (“The theoretical test for admissibility is a lenient one . . .”). We decline to hold that the biological sex of the victim is not relevant to a claim of self-defense.

Regarding the danger of unfair prejudice, we recognize that societal biases exist. As counsel for Defendant observed at the pretrial hearing, any prejudices the jury might have against the victim for being transgender could very well be applied to Defendant for being in a sexual relationship with the transgender victim. The trial court was concerned that knowledge of the victim’s biological sex might lead to bias and cause the jury to confuse the issues. The danger of bias, however, ran both ways in this case. Defendant expressed his concern that the jury might be less likely to accept his claim of self-defense based on their understanding of the victim as a woman rather than a biological male. Notably, the victim’s friend, Mr. Hunter, testified the victim called him because the victim thought he could provide some level of intimidation as a male. These societal views on the differences between male and female behaviors only strengthen our belief that a person’s biological sex has relevance to certain issues.

Everyone saw this coming.

Can someone explain why this is funny? Is Rust that hard to code in?

This is a really smart take on things.

Oh no! If only someone could buy then once they go into bankruptcy… someone like… Microslop perhaps?

(mark my words, this will almost certainly happen)

Is she being ironic or really didn’t actually know? It’s hard to know if attention-economy people do gimmicky things for attention or really are that… uh… unaware of things?