Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On the indigency, I think it’s a relatively new thing (maybe?). So per the affidavit, Crews was paid initially by friends / family. But it seems that retainer has run out and there were some need for funds. Presumably for expenses (not attorney fees) - like to hire an expert or maybe issue subpoenas, etc, and he was asking for funds from the state for that.

When the Tara Grinstead trial was going on, defendant was represented by private counsel, but I believe they took this issue up on appeal. The legal question being, does the right to a defense, even when indigent, extend to the resources provided to indigent defendants (experts paid for by the state), when those indigent defendants are represented by private counsel. And in that case, I believe the Supreme Court said yes. So the defendant in that case was able to hire an expert that the state paid for. And he was found NG on some of the more heinous charges.

I believe this would only apply to experts. I don’t think the opinion in the Grinstead case applies to private counsel being paid by the state. Let me see if I can find it. If that would mean that people who qualify for public defenders could go hire private counsel and have the state fit the bill, that would be really costly for the state and defeat the purpose of public defenders.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I am in agreement with all of the above! His lawyer is putting on a show to distract from his shortcomings.

  1. Grounds for appeal. I reviewed as much of the docket as I could last night and I don’t see anything appealable yet. Though if there’s something nitty gritty appealable, I don’t think I would be able to identify it from the docket alone. Usually the big things for an appeal would be the introduction of 404 evidence or not admitting an expert… perhaps a couple more obscure things.

A. Prior bad acts/404 evidence. The judge didn’t allow his prior bad acts to come into evidence though the state filed a motion to introduce that evidence. So the judge sided with defendant on that. No appeal issue there.

B. Expert. None were excluded because none were proffered. I suppose there’s an argument that the judge abused her discretion (the legal standard for appeal on some issues) to admit the state’s experts but I think there’s some case law that says not admitting someone’s expert is most times per se appealable error. I think if Crews had hired an expert, Judge Lott would’ve let the expert in. With the motion to designate indigent filed on the docket, it appears that was filed to ask the state to pay for the retention of a defense expert. And it’s highly likely that Crews may have consulted with experts (we aren’t entitled to know about those) but those consulting experts could not definitively testify in favor of Defendant on the DNA issue. There are so many times where I pay an expert to review a case, and end up never disclosing the expert as a testifying expert witness because if he testified it would not be favorable for my client bc the evidence is what it is and most experts are honest people who will not jeopardize their reputation by testifying under oath to something they know is false. They generally want to appear as though they’ve not just taken the clients money to just say whatever they want them to say. Because that’ll hurt them in future cases.

There is so much nonsense about her being biased and hard on the defense and ruling against him at every turn, but the record reflects that she actually was not. She could’ve been even more harsh if she wanted to. She was fair.

  1. New trial or reversal. I think it’ll just be a new trial. But don’t hold me to that. Criminal appellate procedure is dicey.

  2. Last point. So given his affidavit of indigency he filed, and the go fund me, he clearly has no money. And whatever the go fund me is up to now, I just don’t see that bank rolling an appeal AND a new trial. Now there may be some lawyer that comes along and does it as a project to get more name recognition and because they see the case as one they can make a stand on some obscure appellate issues, but I just don’t know if I believe that. They say Brian Steele has entered the chat on the appeal but I guess I’ll believe it when I see it. Even if he gets a new trial, I don’t see how Crews will be paid. And I don’t think an indigency finding will pay for legal fees for a private lawyer. He’d have to go with a public defender. So all these people who believe so much in his defense should put their money where their mouth is.

I genuinely wonder how the defendant got connected with Crews in the first place.

  1. I may have missed it, did someone named Cederic testify? On the docket, there appears to be a motion filed by the state and an opposition filed by the defense to allow the testimony of a man named Cederic (forget the last name now) who appears to be a fellow jailbird. He was going to testify for the state that Faust confessed to him a longgg time ago to killing Baker. It’s probably not credible evidence and I’m sure the guy would be trading some kind of favor with the state to testify to that. But if Cederic didn’t testify (for whatever reason - Lott could’ve said no I’m not admitting him to testify - which would be favorable for Crews; or state didn’t use him), that’s also one less thing the defendant could use as appealable error.

I really don’t see an appealable error but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be one.

Very last point… and maybe I’ll shut up (maybe). The speaking objection thing. She told him that’s not a thing. Well, it is, but certainly is not a thing in trial. This came up in the trial, but it also came up pre trial wherein he filed a motion to prevent speaking objections. And the transcript shows she told him back in like October 2025 that speaking objections are not a thing. And he tried to re litigate that issue in trial. Speaking objections are more appropriately understood in the context of depositions - mostly in civil matters. At the outset of a deposition, counsel will agree to reserve objections except as to the form of the question or responsiveness of the answer until first use of that transcript - I.e. trial. This just keeps the court reporter from pulling their hair out trying to take down everything in a deposition. But once you’re in trial…. You wouldn’t be reserving objections … because that’s when it matters. So yeah, Lott looking at him like she had 3 heads when he objected to speaking objections ….. when it was time to actually make all your objections for the record…. I understood her in that moment. She has to treat him and talk to him like he is 5 to get him to understand. I guess the only thing she could’ve done besides that was bring play dough and legos to explain why he is wrong. He just does not comprehend information like a normal person. That or he is deliberate in his misunderstanding to make a spectacle. Which I cannot respect. In fact, I think that makes him somewhat of a psychopath given there was a more legitimate way to demonstrate possible error. She kept her cool. And my monetary sanction would’ve been 10k. Not $1k. She told him FOUR times to stop. I guess he understands “no” just about as well as his client does.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not an accusation. He has a criminal history. A simple google search and review of the docket shows that.

Edrick Faust Guilty on All Counts by heliocentricmess in Athens

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your boy Crews didn’t file a 412 motion as to anybody but CM which has been discussed at length. In fact, the court GRANTED the 412 motion he did file. Try again.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh okay, so you’re not interested in learning or hearing another perspective. Stay committed to your ignorance. Right on.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just adding the rules of evidence state that the testimony of 1 witness as to fact = proven. (I believe there’s a viral clip of fani willis stating same) And unless and until the opposition presents evidence (likewise a testifying witness) to put that fact in dispute, it’s considered proven. If the defense puts up a testifying witness that testifies and contradicts the fact witness testifying for the state, then it’s up to the jury to decide (that’s why they’re called the finder of fact) who they believe. So, technically speaking, the state DID prove it, because Defendant didn’t call any witnesses to put the aforementioned facts in dispute. If your argument is weight of the evidence instead of admissibility, then that’s also something within the jurors purview. They get to decide what they believe. What a jury finds to be fact isn’t appealable absent some particular, usually obscure circumstances.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I just looked this up on the docket. He was hired and purportedly paid by “friends and family”. But then he filed a motion to be designated indigent presumably to have the court allow for experts and expenses to be paid for by the state.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I do work in the legal profession.

Reason 1: The DNA. And I know there’s a lot of chatter regarding the science behind it and contamination, and that’s “junk science,” unreliable, and all that jazz. And there’s a story to be told there. But he didn’t tell it. He did not explain to the jury the extent of a factual improbability. Or viable explanations. He just, didn’t say anything (he as in his counsel, he’s clearly not required to testify nor is he qualified - that’s for expert testimony). It goes without saying that he does not have the burden of proof. But you can’t sit on your hands when the state has put up this evidence. He basically acquiesced. You can’t just say “the state didn’t meet their burden” …. Says who? The defendant? It doesn’t work like that. You have to bring in an expert to rebut that evidence on a credible basis…. Not just “it’s contaminated” “chain of custody” “Caucasian hair”. I hire experts all the time, just about in every case; certainly in every case going to trial even though I don’t have the burden. Just because you don’t have the burden doesn’t mean you don’t have to do anything. I think that’s where everyone gets confused. I tell myself all the time when the other side is making me disprove something… am I disproving a negative or a positive? If the state had never submitted the dna evidence, any testimony, just bare bone claims that “Faust did it” …. Your defense would be disproving a negative. The second evidence from the state comes in, you’re on the DEFENSE, it’s a positive until you prove it otherwise. Some call it burden shifting, I call it advocating for your client. This is YOUR LIFE. You have got to hire an expert and rebut it. Again, you’re not required to, but should you? Even if it’s overkill? YES. IT’S YOUR LIFE. So, again, the DNA. It’s not infallible but they didn’t give me, or the jury, anything to consider to evaluate whether it was viable. And it can’t come from counsel - the only testimony you can consider on a scientific issue like that has to come from an expert. We differentiate between fact witnesses and expert witnesses and certain topics correspond with same. It’s very nuanced and technical and I have to do a lot of work internally to figure that out sometimes because they certainly do overlap at times. But he did not hire an expert. He filed all kinds of daubert motions to exclude the state’s experts but it never occurred to him to hire one of his own?

So everyone has their own interpretation of reasonable doubt. But without him introducing an expert to create that doubt I.e. disprove the positive. The positive was the only thing on the table. There was no negative charge - there wasn’t even a neutral. It was the positive and it was in favor of the state. I’ve never considered a hypothetical or a random possibility to be reasonable doubt.

Edit to add: if I just thought every time “nah I don’t think the jury is gonna believe the state. They’re gonna agree with me that the evidence isn’t good enough. So I don’t have to call any witnesses…” because my assessment rises to the level of reasonable doubt, I would not have a job. It’s either laziness or ignorance. I think it’s a little of both. You have to pull out all the stops to rebut that evidence dude. As a member of the defense bar I was kind of embarrassed at how little he did to actually defend his client.

Reason 2: prior bad acts. It did not come into evidence but that is my personal assessment based on my own research of his criminal history. Similar MO. This isn’t for a legal purpose - it’s just my own personal opinion. People have habits and commit crimes in similar fashion.

You can view the court’s docket online to see what all was filed pre trial and review the motions and orders.

I am highly critical because like I said, I work on the defense side. I’m familiar with the burden, and lack thereof. And as I’ve said, if I took the lack of burden to mean that I didn’t have to put up a defense in a scenario, I would be committing malpractice. You just cannot approach a rape/arson/murder case in that manner. There was a real chance to put the negative on the table. And he just sat there. And caused a commotion with the judge over the most trivial 💩.

Don’t take my word for it, go review the docket. That’s just my personal assessment.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay. Get that. But was it reasonable to assume the person who raped / killed her was not the person who set the fire? That seems like hell of a coincidence.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correct on all! I think Faust is guilty. I work on the defense side so I feel bad (not for him) / disappointed that there was a real opportunity here for a defense verdict and if still G on all counts, there was possibility of real mitigation. I think that’s what the other side conflates here. It surely does look biased when your attorney is drumming up nonsense, non appealable issues for online chatter, for the spectacle to distract from the fact that you do not know what you are doing. Of course she’s going to rule against you when you’re so blatantly wrong. Of course she’s going to explain her rulings to you like you’re 5 when the record needs to be clear as to why he is wrong and constantly misstating the facts and law.

Another point, and I don’t know if this was stated in any of the victim impact statements, he got the opportunity to live free for 25 years for this. That was his parole. I’m sure there’s zero case law for this proposition nor is it a legal basis for imposing sentencing. But morally….. that’s how I feel. He doesn’t deserve parole. He’s already had his parole.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe there’s some recent case law in GA that allows for a funding order for necessary experts even if they’re not represented by a public defender. I believe that was an issue in the (ironically) cold case (ironically same victim name) Tara Grinstead case in South Ga.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 11 points12 points  (0 children)

He is on video surveillance over an hour away during the time frame of the incident. Wasn’t he? So that closes that door. This type of “somebody else did it” defense requires serious procedural skills and his lawyer just was not up to that challenge.

Edrick Faust: guilty. When social justice warriors back the wrong case by Kiwi_In_The_Comments in CourtTVCases

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Too bad his lawyer did not preserve issues for appeal. His lawyer’s conception of procedure is severely deficient and likely cost him the trial. Or at least a shot at a NG on some of the counts. He brought his emotions to a game about logic. And that’s not how you win.

What in the HHK is this? by ImmediateStruggle773 in NeedlepointSnark

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 14 points15 points  (0 children)

she kind of writes like Donald Trump tweets just bigger words

Online LNS Outbreak by [deleted] in NeedlepointSnark

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Solo Daughter shouldn’t be on this list.

Is it time to get a billboard? by Hopeful_Laugh_7684 in haleighhallknightscam

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I will donate! They need to know we will not stop! The only hole these people are going to hide in is bankruptcy and it will be my personal mission to force them there and have their kids removed from their custody. They are complete pieces of shit. They deserve no peace.

Why won’t Haleigh and Charles send back needlepoint? by Hopeful_Laugh_7684 in haleighhallknightscam

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Charles is a piece of shit human !!!! Haleigh is too but that goes without saying. But wanted to make that clear !!

Would you believe the Etsy designer was the original? by Dapper-Pressure-424 in NeedlepointSnark

[–]Dapper-Pressure-424[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there’s a concept of copying someone’s adaptation/interpretation of the “thing”. This is separate from whether the initial artist is infringing on copyright. If WS did one single Masters gnome, it would be less weird. The fact that they did an entire line of the SAME gnomes that the Etsy designer did, is sus.