By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to cellphone records, Ryan Routh sent messages to his family declaring his love shortly before an alleged assassination attempt on President Trump at his Florida golf course. Prosecutors presented their case, focusing on Routh’s alleged planning and actions, including aiming a rifle at the president. Routh, representing himself, plans to present his defense, calling a few witnesses and the possibility of testifying. The trial’s pace has been faster than anticipated, with closing arguments expected Tuesday and the jury beginning deliberations afterward. The suspect had a history of criminal activities and previous threats prior to the incident.
Read the original article here
Man representing himself against charges of trying to kill Trump plans to call just 3 witnesses, a situation that’s already drawing a lot of attention, presents a rather unique legal spectacle. This man, facing potential life in prison, decided to represent himself, which is often seen as a risky move, especially in a case as serious as this one. He’s accused of plotting to assassinate Donald Trump, allegedly planning the attack for weeks before aiming a rifle at the former president while he was playing golf. The prosecution has laid out their case, painting a picture of a deliberate and calculated attempt. But the defense, now in the hands of the defendant himself, is shaping up to be something else entirely.
The choice of witnesses is where things get really interesting, or perhaps, unsettling. He’s not calling any of the usual suspects. He’s not bringing in forensic experts, or character witnesses in the traditional sense. Instead, he plans to rely on himself, and a couple of metaphorical figures. This choice of witnesses immediately raises eyebrows, suggesting his mental state might be, well, not exactly stable. One can’t help but wonder about the strategy here. Is it a deliberate move to appear incompetent, perhaps hoping to sway a jury with a sympathetic view? Or is it simply a reflection of his current state of mind, making it difficult to mount a traditional defense?
One of the witnesses he plans to call is a rather unusual one: “the ghost that never lies”. We’re left to imagine how that exchange will play out in court. Will he ask the ghost about the events of that day? Will he try to get the ghost to identify the culprit in the courtroom? It’s hard to predict what the legal ramifications of this unusual witness might be.
The second witness is, perhaps, even more unconventional: Vladimir Putin and Jeffrey Epstein, presumably, will offer character witness testimony for the former president. This is a bold move, or perhaps a bewildering one.
The third witness is himself. This means he’ll be directly involved in his own defense, cross-examining himself, and attempting to paint a picture of what happened. The whole scenario suggests a defense strategy rooted in a reality that might not align with the court’s.
The defendant’s past actions paint a picture of a man who struggles to grasp what is going on and is often unhinged. It’s difficult to see how he will be able to build a legal defense with the facts at hand, the choice of witnesses, and his own behavior. His plan to be a sniper from a bush is a bit hard to take seriously. The level of preparation for the alleged assassination attempt seems rather questionable. And his own requests during pre-trial proceedings are evidence to his level of detachment from reality.
Further evidence of the man’s mental state comes from other requests: He requested a one-on-one fight with Trump, a round of golf where the winner could choose the fate of the other, and asked for a cell with strippers and golf. The trial, from this point, has the potential to become a spectacle. The jury will have to decide whether the defendant is guilty and whether his unusual behavior is a deliberate act of madness or a genuine manifestation of a psychological illness.
This trial won’t just be about guilt or innocence; it will be a testament to the complicated intersection of mental health and the legal system. It’s a case that reminds us of the human element at the heart of the law, and the sometimes-unpredictable ways in which it can intersect with reality.