If you’ve missed the ongoing legal ruckus over (former Democrat State Senator) Jeff Woodburn’s Domestic assault circus, it has been a wild ride. Post-conviction, Mr. Woodburn got the State Supreme Court to dismiss and remand his case because the trial court refused to admit certain evidence.
As a pre-trial for the new trial evolves, Woodburn has asked for evidence to be allowed while the State has requested that it not, and for good reason. Woodburn’s “evidence” amounts to proving Woodburn had, on several previous occasions, attempted to distance himself from conflict and that the alleged victim acted to prevent this. It is meant to reinforce the defendant’s claim that what he is accused of was self-defense, but his journal and other evidence document anger issues and own frustration with them.
The problem, however, is his proof.
The State Supreme Court, had they known, might have ruled differently, but the value of the evidence was not on trial. The trial court’s rejection of the evidence (or how it was rejected) was, and Woodburn won that battle but to no good end. The evidence the court rejected that got him his retrial has been rejected again on much more well-documented grounds.
If Woodburn is again convicted on any counts, he has nowhere to go but the pokey, community, or something suitable to a pasty white former Democrat lawmaker with liberal privilege. Or maybe just the conviction hung about his neck is adequate. He hasn’t run for public office again, which is a win for taxpayers.
But you can never know what might follow, though, at this point, I think they should call this case – which has dragged on for years – Woodburn vs. Woodburn.
