Guest Voz: (my friend) Porter Corn - Immigration ClearinghousePossible defense strategies revealed for Minuteman Shawna Forde’s Trial
Before Forde defense attorney Eric Larsen left on vacation, he filed some documents in Pima County Superior Court outlining his defense strategy in the upcoming trial of Minuteman Shawna Forde, accused mastermind in the murder of 9 year old Brisenia Flores and her father Raul. This move was required under the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The prosecutions theory is that Forde needed money for her little border vigilante group, MINUTEMAN AMERICAN DEFENSE, so she enlisted the aid of Jason Bush and Albert Gaxiola to rip off Raul “Jr.” Flores, a purported drug dealer. Forde discussed this with others who are expected to testify for the prosecution, including two Colorado Minutemen and the star of the show, Oin Oakstar, who was supposed to be the fourth person but got too drunk and forgot to show up for the party.
Some of Larsen’s defense strategies were expected, such as “the state failed to prove their case,” but then, there were these others:
•Gaxiola was romantically involved with Flores’ widow
•Forde wasn’t present at the crime scene.
•Forde was misidentified as a suspect.
•Gaxiola and Oakstar conspired to eliminate Flores as their drug trade competitor.
•Flores’ widow named Gaxiola as a perpetrator.
•Gaxiola had been feuding with Flores.
Larsen said he also plans to impeach the expected testimony of Forde’s mother, brother and Oakstar.
In addition, he says the jewelry found in Forde’s possession isn’t Flores’ widow’s, as alleged by prosecutors.
Larsen also filed a document listing the mitigating factors he intends to tell jurors about during the penalty phase of the trial. Some of them include;
•Neuropsychological deficits/damage/frontal lobe deficits.
•Multiple abandonments as child.
•Sexually abusive childhood.
•Dysfunctional childhood.
•Manipulated/gullible
•Volunteer work, public service, lack of felony record, productively employed
•History of non-violence
•Polysubstance abuse
•Medical records, including records from a stroke
So in a nutshell, the defense will be that Gaxiola was screwing Flores wife in order for Gaxiola and Oakstar to ripoff the cuckolded husband of drugs and cash they may or may not have had. And in the course of things, Forde wasn’t present at the crime scene yet she was misidentified as a suspect at the crime scene.
With that kind of logic, we can expect the trial to last less than a week. And where does the shooter Jason Bush fit into all of this? After all, his blood was found in the teal van parked at the Gaxiola residence and seen cruising the hood around the Flores property the morning of the murders with a “blonde woman” in the passenger seat. And let us not forget one of Forde’s staunchest defenders, Laine Lawless, who accompanied Chuck Stonex to the Gaxiola house to patch up Bush’s bullet wound.
And once the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, to keep Forde out of death row, the “mitigating factors” to Fordes actions has me falling off of my seat laughing my axx off.
So to wrap up the defenses that will be used to keep her off the gurney, the defense will accurately portray Forde as a crazy bxtch who wasn’t born with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth, who had challenges in her childhood that others have. A crack head who couldn’t decide on any one drug of choice so she tried many as she plowed her way through life conning people and being conned herself. Selling her axx to undercover officers on the streets of Tacoma at age 14 might be considered a sexually abused childhood by some, but not by others. And she was productively employed hunting Mexicans on the border so her life should be spared for the heinous and calculated crime which took the life of an innocent 9 year old child because she has a history of non-violence. Did I get all that right?
I rest my case. Thank you Kim
•Gaxiola was romantically involved with Flores’ widow
•Forde wasn’t present at the crime scene.
•Forde was misidentified as a suspect.
•Gaxiola and Oakstar conspired to eliminate Flores as their drug trade competitor.
•Flores’ widow named Gaxiola as a perpetrator.
•Gaxiola had been feuding with Flores.
Larsen said he also plans to impeach the expected testimony of Forde’s mother, brother and Oakstar.
In addition, he says the jewelry found in Forde’s possession isn’t Flores’ widow’s, as alleged by prosecutors.
Larsen also filed a document listing the mitigating factors he intends to tell jurors about during the penalty phase of the trial. Some of them include;
•Neuropsychological deficits/damage/frontal lobe deficits.
•Multiple abandonments as child.
•Sexually abusive childhood.
•Dysfunctional childhood.
•Manipulated/gullible
•Volunteer work, public service, lack of felony record, productively employed
•History of non-violence
•Polysubstance abuse
•Medical records, including records from a stroke
So in a nutshell, the defense will be that Gaxiola was screwing Flores wife in order for Gaxiola and Oakstar to ripoff the cuckolded husband of drugs and cash they may or may not have had. And in the course of things, Forde wasn’t present at the crime scene yet she was misidentified as a suspect at the crime scene.
With that kind of logic, we can expect the trial to last less than a week. And where does the shooter Jason Bush fit into all of this? After all, his blood was found in the teal van parked at the Gaxiola residence and seen cruising the hood around the Flores property the morning of the murders with a “blonde woman” in the passenger seat. And let us not forget one of Forde’s staunchest defenders, Laine Lawless, who accompanied Chuck Stonex to the Gaxiola house to patch up Bush’s bullet wound.
And once the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, to keep Forde out of death row, the “mitigating factors” to Fordes actions has me falling off of my seat laughing my axx off.
So to wrap up the defenses that will be used to keep her off the gurney, the defense will accurately portray Forde as a crazy bxtch who wasn’t born with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth, who had challenges in her childhood that others have. A crack head who couldn’t decide on any one drug of choice so she tried many as she plowed her way through life conning people and being conned herself. Selling her axx to undercover officers on the streets of Tacoma at age 14 might be considered a sexually abused childhood by some, but not by others. And she was productively employed hunting Mexicans on the border so her life should be spared for the heinous and calculated crime which took the life of an innocent 9 year old child because she has a history of non-violence. Did I get all that right?
I rest my case. Thank you Kim
Posts
