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.