Sometimes your senses get a bit dulled from reading the same basic criminal fact patterns again and again. Defendant arrested for drug possession. Defendant pulls out a gun and commits a robbery. Defendant assaults a person in a bar. Defendant commits domestic violence. Defendant commits a robbery or assault or murder to "represent" his gang.
Every fact pattern is somewhat unique, of course. But there are definitely patterns.
But then, once in while, the Court of Appeal publishes an opinion that mixes things up a bit.
So today's published opinion begins:
"After defendant Brady Dee Douglas’s former boyfriend, a male prostitute, told
him Jeffrey B. had shorted him money following a prearranged sexual encounter,
defendant and codefendant Clifton Sharpe tracked down Jeffrey and demanded the
unpaid money. During a high speed freeway chase, Jeffrey swerved his car into
defendant’s vehicle after defendant pointed a gun at him, shooting several times. Jeffrey
was able to escape unharmed."
Yep. That's a little bit different.
There's also some great doctrinal stuff in the opinion about what you do with mixed-motive Batson challenges, particularly as applied to prospective gay jurors in a case like this one. Definitely worth a read.
And not your garden variety fact pattern. If only because we don't have all that many freeway shootings as we did back in the old days. Or at least not typically for reasons like this one.
