> intent of the video was to prejudice the jury
It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision
It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision
Is your point merely that they accidentally used the wrong word here? This strikes me as one of those shallow dismissals that the HN guidelines (wisely) caution against:
The whole resentencing judgement came in part because the original judge stated how much he liked the ai video of the victim.