Posted on August 29 at 8:32 a.m.

What crimes is the defendant charged with in addition to murder?

On Short Recess for Juarez Murder Trial

Posted on August 22 at 9:42 a.m.

Engrossing and very tragic - people's cruelty to animals exceeds even their cruelty to other people.

On The Plight of the Wild Mustangs

Posted on March 5 at 9:35 a.m.

Sorry but I find it very far-fatched that this lame testimony could be grounds for setting aside the jury's verdict in this case.
First, the dental expert testimony at trial was tangential and weak at best, not at all dispositive, indicating not that the bite marks WERE the defendant's but only that the expert could not rule out the defendant as the source. (This article so poorly lays out the evidence about the victim's boyfriend, with whom she had consensual sex several days earlier, it strongly suggests he was the perpetrator, something the defense attorney was unable to sell to the jury at trial, even just to raise reasonable doubt of Frimpong's guilt).
Second, there was abundant and compelling physical evidence and testimony of Frimpong's guilt produced during the trial, as the Judge noted at the start of the hearing (the strongest such evidence the judge has ever seen in a rape case, which one hopes indicates he will ultimately deny this very ordinary post-trial motion).
Third, the defense expert upon whose testimony the defense bases its motion to set aside the jury's verdict was not prevented from testifying at trial because of anything the prosecution did nor any ruling by the judge excluding him - he was sick and couldn't make it. The idea that a jury verdict could be set aside on this basis, rather than some newly-discovered post-trial evidence, strikes me as absurd and fraught with all kinds of possibilities for misuse by less scrupulous defense lawyers.
Fourth, there appears to be a substantial possibility the defense expert has reversed the dental arches and has them upside down as three prosecution experts have concluded. Presumably, the judge will sort that one out but it underlines the inherent weakness of this type of evidence, whether offered by the prosecution or the defense.

The hearing should be concluded expeditiously, not allowed to drag on any longer than necessary, and sentence imposed. (The judge bent over backwards in even granting a hearing on this motion). No one should not lose sight of the fact that this was a vicious and brutal rape which the jury, after hearing the evidence at trial, found BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT was carried out by this defendant. The fact that he was a good soccer player or that he has teammates and friends who support him should not cloud anyone's understanding about what happened here and at trial.

On Whose Mark is This?

Posted on December 7 at 1:21 p.m.

Sorry but I am not buying Sanger's latest line of defense and his attempt to bob and weave around the facts. Immediately after the incident, the victim claimed Frimpong raped her - he contended the sex was consensual. Now, he is claiming mistaken identity - it wasn't him at all. The testimony of the second victim - who was "only" assaulted - when combined with the extensive physical evidence including bruises, bite marks, etc. pretty much seals the deal - same location, modus operandi, etc etc. Helping UCSB win an NCAA title doesn't mitigate or excuse what Frimpong did and he deserves a serious jail sentence - this was a brutal crime.

On Frimpong Trial Screen Video of Alleged Rape Victim's Examination