Los Angeles prosecutors have responded to Tory Lanez’s motion for a new trial. Prosecutors claim that Tory and his lawyer’s arguments are baseless and he does not deserve a new trial. Tory’s lawyers Jose Baez and Matthew Barhoma submitted a motion for a new trial.
In the 84-page motion submitted by Lanez’s (Birth name Daystar Peterson) legal team, they argued many errors were made by the court. However, prosecutors are disagreeing with that motion. “The defendant’s brief is replete with colorful rhetoric and conclusory statements, but it lacks substance”, according to the 16-page opposition.
Despite being nearly 80 pages long, the defendant has failed to cite a single instance of error in the trial court
One of the main points the prosecution brings up is that Tory’s lawyers didn’t object to the DNA evidence during the trial. “As the court is aware, the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of our justice system. However, a motion for a new trial must be based on substantial legal grounds and supported by evidence. It is not a vehicle for a litigant to reargue their case or to make vague and unsupported allegations”, according to the opposition. To read the full opposition please click here.
Summary breakdown of Tory Lanez’s new trial motion
In the motion for the new trial, there were several things that stood out to me as key points to their motion. *My commentary is in (italics). See the summary breakdown below:
1. Improper admission of false evidence: Megan’s producer Lil Ju made the beat make a post claiming that the police matched bullets from Tory’s gun to the one in Megan’s feet. The DA willingly and knowingly entered the Shaderoom’s post as evidence to the jury knowing that it was false. Tory was convicted of having an unregistered gun. (How can they match bullets to fragments they claim they can’t find? Also, how can you convict him when the gun was unregistered and they never proved or determined who the gun belonged to)? The DA-led the jury to believe it was Tory’s gun based on a post off the shaderoom.
2. The court erroneously (incorrectly) granted the people’s motion to admit the shaderoom Instagram post as evidence: They also admitted a reply from Tory Lanez IG account stating “that’s not true” when someone said “people saying Kelsey shot Megan” this was a direct violation and a miscarriage of justice. The post, therefore, was inadmissible and unreliable hearsay. (Tory did not make the reply it came from someone who was running his account and they have statements from the person and proof. Also, the reply can be taken any kind of way).
3. Improper admission of alleged inculpatory (tending to incriminate) statements by the defendant: Megan claimed that Tory would give her $1M to keep quiet because he was on probation (no one else heard this btw). Tory Lanez was never on probation. The bribery charges didn’t stick and should have never been entered as evidence. (The jury was told he was on probation when he was not smh which creates a negative impression).
4. Defendants’ civil rights were violated when the judge allowed a jury to hear an 80-minute interview from Kelsey Harris: Harris admitted under oath that she lied. Her testimony was unreliable. (The jury was instructed not to use it as evidence but I mean can you really un-hear something)?
5. Violation of the defendant’s right to counsel. Famed defense attorney Shawn Holley was the original lawyer on this case: It was reported that Holley stepped away because of a scheduling conflict (now we found out that’s not true). On or around September 14, 2022, it was informally alleged by the DA that Tory, being aided and abetted by his defense team, had extended a bribe to Kelsey by way of financial and/or business benefits. Holley says there was no bribe and the DA agreed that she was not involved. After agreeing they still brought it up in court on the record, therefore putting Holley’s reputation at risk. She stepped down from the trial 12 days before it was set to begin. The motion claims the prosecution prejudicially interfered with Tory’s right to conflict-free counsel. (She chose to protect her name and career. Y’all didn’t protect this black woman since that’s the train y’all on).
6. The DNA evidence admitted did not comply with industry-accepted standards and was in violation of Tory’s due process rights resulting in a miscarriage of justice: The expert testimony offered at the trial did not comply. The evidence presented in the case was processed and manipulated in a way to specifically aligns with the conclusion the state desired. The documents also say that Tory was no more likely than most other black men in the population to have been a contributor. (Based on what they found the likeliness of Tory touching the gun in any capacity was just as likely as any male. This means Megan could have said it was your uncle and they would convict). The chances of him handling the gun were said to be 1 in a million. There was a male who contributed 90% of the DNA on the gun and it was ruled to not have been Tory’s.
7. Evidence of Tory’s creative expression was improperly used against him, depriving him of the safeguards prescribed by recently added evidence code 352.2: They showed a picture to the jury of Tory being shirtless and pointed out that he has a gun tatted on his chest. Tattoos are included as creative expression under the new legislation. They also allowed Megan to mention a music video of Tory chopping up horse legs. (They broke down Kelsey dis track but skipped over the part where she said “Are you lying to your label, do they really know what happened? “who shot you” …. Interesting.
8. The court impermissibly chilled Tory’s right to testify: The jury did not hear Tory’s recollection of events regarding the night in question because the judge ruled that if he testified, the state can introduce his music video and rap lyrics during cross-examination. This error drastically prejudiced Tory’s defense because it paints him as a violent “gun-carrying” tattooed gangster.