On the 8th of July, 2008, defense attorneys for Kyle Bormann appeared in court in an attempt to suppress statements that Kyle Bormann made to police on the night that he was arrested.
According to Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine, lawyers for Kyle Bormann are trying to show that there were issues with the search and seizure of evidence relating to Kyle Bormann’s arrest:
They’re moving to suppress evidence so we can’t use it during the trial.
Officers who encountered Kyle that night, shortly after the 19-year-old shot 21-year-old Brittany Williams in the head with a sniper rifle from 100 yards away, took the stand and pointed out a few interesting tidbits of information.
The two officers who detained Kyle Bormann in their police car told the courtroom that Kyle started to talk while he was sitting in the back of their vehicle. As one officer checked to make sure the camera in their patrol vehicle was working, the other officer tried to tell Kyle Bormann to stop talking. Despite this advice, Kyle told the officers that he was upset at the referees of an NFL game and that:
It was because of the blacks. You know how those blacks are.
According to the officers, Kyle Bormann then said that he had gotten dressed, grabbed his deer rifle and drove around for a while, but that he hadn’t shot anyone that night.
Officers who were in Kyle’s vicinity that night all reported smelling alcohol on Kyle’s breath.
Kyle Bormann’s defense attorneys have until July 16th to file a written brief with the court. Once that happens, the county prosecutor will then have a week to respond.
Kyle Bormann’s trial has been scheduled for the 15th of September, 2008.
Spread the word about this article!
Similar Posts:
How do defense lawyers sleep at night.
they know he is guilty, they want to help…and in every case where the attorney is really trying, and the crime is beyond sick…I have to wonder, would they stick up for him, if the victim was their family?
[Reply]
On the other hand… If they *didn’t* give this obviously guilty guy the best defense they could then there could be a mistrial.
I’m not going to condemn people for doing their job. I feel bad for defense lawyers. You get into that area of law because you believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Then these people pick and pick and pick at you.
Let the case be air tight.
[Reply]
TurtleMania reply on July 8th, 2008:
I agree.
Personally, I fucking hate cops…most of them. Some of them don’t go by the book and they screw up royally during arrests.
So I can’t write-off defense attorneys 100%
I might be in need of their services one day.
[Reply]
Wylie Wilde reply on August 2nd, 2008:
Defence lawyers who defend their clients - and have intimate knowledge that they are indeed guilty - and still keep on representing them - and do not share the information with the authorities - ought to be hung drawn and quartered - together with other scum.
[Reply]
Mazzi reply on August 2nd, 2008:
Defense attorneys are generally strict constitutionalists who believe that a citizens right to a fair trial outweighs their own (or society’s) morals. If you look at it literally, that is what each American is guaranteed - BUT lines need to be drawn somewhere.
I don’t think that our forfathers intended those rights to mean that every scumball should be allowed to get off scott-free because of some twist or blip in the law. The lawyers have fine-tuned that one.
The lawyers hands are tied about reporting their clients. Every state has a Bar Association, and they are the ultimate power over lawyer’s behavior. Every state has rules regarding confidentiality, and pretty much, all say that there are only a FEW instances where a lawyer is “allowed” (rarely required) to break client confidentiality. And, the client telling the lawyer that he “did it”, is not one of those things. Generally, the only time it is permitted is when the lawyer has first-hand knowledge that a FELONY is to be committed in the FUTURE. If the lawyer breaks confidentiality, he or she better damned well be right, or they will likely be sanctioned - up to and including losing their license to practice law.
This is one of the many reasons that I changed my major from law to psychology. LOL.
Anyway, as tempting as it is to just dismiss the scumball lawyers - consider the alternative. If you are ever in trouble, you need to know that you have someone in your corner.
[Reply]
A good defense atty works with ALL the evidence, does not need legal technicalities to defend a suspect and will use the truth to either create a reasonable doubt and/or find a reasonable explanation of their client’s actions and explain why such should not be criminal. They may also need to discredit accusers or witnesses as well.
Then there is the other 95% that ruin it - they look to surpress tyhe truth with any type of technicality, discredit witnesses in whatever manner possible. THeir goal is to remove as many facts from the story as possible as to reduce the prosecuter’s case so it does not meet the burden of proof. Such attys with guilty clients do not bother to establish reasonable doubt, instead their goal is to corner a prosecutor and bully a jury.
There is a special pace in hell for such - it’s deeper, warmer and darker because even Satan himself cannot stand the sight of them; he fears such as well.
[Reply]
Fred, that’s a very beautiful theory.
[Reply]
Denver303 reply on August 6th, 2008:
More fact than theory, I’m afraid…
[Reply]
I had to change my major from law to psychology, because I could not be a part of that tainted profession. My family is full of good, hardworking, honest lawyers, but the scum that is being produced from law school today is an embarassment. The law is now a “game” and the only thing that matters to most attorneys is getting the cash and winning the case so they can jockey themselves into position to get MORE cash. It’s a sick system.
These lawyers? They are just doing what they have been trained to do. I trust that karma will kick in someday, and they will get what’s coming to them. Be it hell, or their next life as an innocent person, full of life’s expectations, who is shot down before she has a chance to live.
In the meantime, lock your doors and keep your kids where you can see them, in case this dreg, or the millions of dregs like him, get out.
[Reply]
Fred reply on July 9th, 2008:
My hope for these “limousine liberals” is that their car breaks down either in a bad neighborhood thatthey usually drive thru or past or on a highway at night.
Let their hearts tremble in fear with the knowledge of the type of scum they set free.
[Reply]
Fred reply on July 9th, 2008:
Also, to me it seems that law is of almost no concern in courts today - it’s precedent that atys seem to argue. And with every twist that a precedent veers from the law, the next case built on such will only deviate further from the law.
Today’s lawyers seem to argue like a bunch of young siblings “WAA - Tommy killed Jenny with an axe, so why can’t I kill Sarah and Johnny with a chainsaw?”
[Reply]
Mazzi reply on July 9th, 2008:
You are so correct. Common law was a pretty good idea back in the olden days, when the law was concerned with fairness to all. But with so many courts and judges, there is really nothing left for the lawyers to do but nitpick at every tiny nuance of the precedents. And the states that are leaning towards statutory law are not having it any easier. Since the statutes are so vague (in comparison) the courts have to go back to the precedents.
It’s a seriously broken system. And about 90% of the fault can be placed squarely in the lawyers laps. The bulk of the remaining 10% is probably due to the mothers of these scumbag criminals, who will defend and enable their *ehem* “crotchfruit”, no matter what twisted and sick activities they decide to persue. “But Johnny/Antoine/Pedro is such a GOOD BOY”.
[Reply]
Sarah reply on July 9th, 2008:
yo. fr3d. u cant be killin me cuz i be killin u first.
okay, that took a lot out of me.
I don’t disagree with you. I do agree that there is *no* honor in law. I do not however see fault in what *these* lawyers are doing. If they didn’t do it the unfortunate reality is that this guy could get a second chance.
[Reply]
Fred reply on July 10th, 2008:
It depend on what they are doing -
dealing with all facts, asking questions, challanging evidence and defending their clients is one thing
surpressing evidence on technicalities and bullying juries is NOT what was supposed to happen, but is a common tatic for defense attys.
Wow…I don’t know what to say other then Kyle was a nut in high school..
[Reply]
It is my understanding that they only want suppress his comments about black referees for the ballgame he was upset about as evidence because he said them before he was read his miranda rights and it is these comments that they using as evidence to charge him with a “hate crime”. His atty are only trying to get the “hate crime” charges dropped. Kyle wavied his right to peliminary hearing and as I understand is not fighting the charges of being a murderer but fighting the charges of “…he did it because she was black” He is basically saying “I did it, but not because of racism.” I think his lawyers should be allowed to question whether or not his statements about the black football officials he was upset with had anything to do with motive and the context of when these statemants were made. I feel the race card is being played too often, and that at 100 yards away in the dark, it would be pretty hard for a drunk person to tell the skin color of a person in a car. The race card is a politcal ploy because it happened in north omaha, and just wait to hear ernie chambers freak out if they do throw his statements, which they more than likely won’t, because then north o will picett and be outraged! Even brittany’s parents don’t tink it was racially motivated and are asking for forgivness for him.
[Reply]
Mazzi reply on July 21st, 2008:
I could give a rat’s ass about the miranda rights. That is a prime example of a good idea gone to extreme stupidity.
What moron today does NOT know their rights? Most of these criminals know their rights better than honest citizens, who never really have a “need to know”. But I defy you to find me one non-retarded, english-speaking adult in the US today, who could not fill in the blank after “you have the right to remain silent, _______________”.
OK.. so the fact is that this KILLER said stuff before he was read his rights. Why shoud THAT disqualify the information? Can you see what a “smart” criminal would do? Yeah.. hell yeah… confess everything before he’s mirandized, and automatically have all of that thrown out of court. Bullshit!
Kyle obviously had some issues with blacks. If not, he would not have said what he did. The innocent person he killed was black. Coincidence? That should be up to a JURY
to decide, based on the EVIDENCE, not just based on the evidence they get to hear.
Does anyone have any idea how many times jurists find out stuff after a trial - that the guy they just set free for lack of evidence in a child molestation case has 3 prior child molestation accusations that were not convictions, for example - and they realize that if they had known that tidbit, it would have totally changed their minds? It happens A LOT!
I am sick of the criminals getting these kinds of breaks. Who gives a damn if the information is prejudicial? If it’s true, it’s true - and the people deciding whether the suspect is guilty should have EVERYTHING to make their decision.
That said, I think the concept of “hate crimes” for felonies is stupid in general. ALL crimes are hate crimes. Maybe for “minor” offenses like vandalism, OK - but murder? What difference does it make if the killer murdered because of the race of the victim? None. It’s no more horrible than if they murdered their doppelganger. It’s bullshit.
[Reply]
In my opinion, he murdered an innocent person. I personally hope that the hate crimes part is NOT dropped because A) this fuckstick is a murderer, and B) it will speed his ass off to the CHAMBER and the grave, where he belongs.
[Reply]