4:41 pm - 06/08/2012
A lawyer for the man convicted of murder in the killings of three members of actress Jennifer Hudson’s family filed a motion Friday for a new trial, citing in part the “prejudicial effect” on the jury he said Hudson’s testimony had.
“The testimony was irrelevant, and because of the fame of the witness, the prejudicial effect of the testimony on the jury outweighed any probative value that it would have,” says the seven-page motion from Amy Thompson, an assistant Cook County public defender.
Hudson was the first witness to testify against her former brother-in-law William Balfour at his high-profile triple-murder trial in April.
Hudson testified that she never liked Balfour, even when they were classmates in grade school. The singer and Academy Award-winning actress also said she didn’t like the way he treated her sister, Julia, vehemently opposed their marriage.
“None of us — myself, my mother or my brother — we did not like how he treated her, and I didn’t like how he treated my nephew,” Hudson testified, her voice wavering.
Balfour, 31, was convicted a few weeks later, in May, of killing Hudson’s 57-year-old mother, Darnell Donerson, the actress’ 29-year-old brother, Jason Hudson, and her nephew, Julian King, 7, in October 2008.
Balfour, who was married to Jennifer Hudson’s sister, Julia Hudson, committed the murders out of jealousy that his estranged wife had started dating another man, according to testimony that prosecutors presented.
In her court filing, Thompson also mentioned the lack of physical evidence tying Balfour to the crime scenes and said the judge didn’t give the defense enough time to prepare its case, noting that Cook County prosecutors gave Balfour’s lawyers more than 2,000 pages of files and a six-hour videotape six months before the trial.
Prosecutors and Balfour’s lawyers are expected to argue the motion July 24 before Judge Charles Burns.
If the judge rejects the bid for a new trial, he could sentence Balfour that day.
Source
Fuck this asshole.
Man convicted of killing Jennifer Hudson's family seeks new trial, blames JHud for guilty verdict
A lawyer for the man convicted of murder in the killings of three members of actress Jennifer Hudson’s family filed a motion Friday for a new trial, citing in part the “prejudicial effect” on the jury he said Hudson’s testimony had.
“The testimony was irrelevant, and because of the fame of the witness, the prejudicial effect of the testimony on the jury outweighed any probative value that it would have,” says the seven-page motion from Amy Thompson, an assistant Cook County public defender.Hudson was the first witness to testify against her former brother-in-law William Balfour at his high-profile triple-murder trial in April.
Hudson testified that she never liked Balfour, even when they were classmates in grade school. The singer and Academy Award-winning actress also said she didn’t like the way he treated her sister, Julia, vehemently opposed their marriage.
“None of us — myself, my mother or my brother — we did not like how he treated her, and I didn’t like how he treated my nephew,” Hudson testified, her voice wavering.
Balfour, 31, was convicted a few weeks later, in May, of killing Hudson’s 57-year-old mother, Darnell Donerson, the actress’ 29-year-old brother, Jason Hudson, and her nephew, Julian King, 7, in October 2008.
Balfour, who was married to Jennifer Hudson’s sister, Julia Hudson, committed the murders out of jealousy that his estranged wife had started dating another man, according to testimony that prosecutors presented.In her court filing, Thompson also mentioned the lack of physical evidence tying Balfour to the crime scenes and said the judge didn’t give the defense enough time to prepare its case, noting that Cook County prosecutors gave Balfour’s lawyers more than 2,000 pages of files and a six-hour videotape six months before the trial.
Prosecutors and Balfour’s lawyers are expected to argue the motion July 24 before Judge Charles Burns.
If the judge rejects the bid for a new trial, he could sentence Balfour that day.
Source
Fuck this asshole.
Like they say he did it out of jealousy and it's totally wrong to point out things he had said and done out of jealousy before.
ergo, you could be wrong if the defense open up the door about her grief it is relevant for her "emotional turmoil caused by the defendant"
Oh, and you misused ergo.