Here is the guts of the West Motion:

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Obviously: The potential import of the res gestae exceptions is that GZ's exculpatory hearsay statements are admissible in evidence, w/o GZ taking the stand, via testimony from Smith and W13.

Not So Obviously: Testimony by Smith and W13, in combination with physical evidence (photos of GZ injuries) other witnesses (W6, EMT, medical expert), may even be sufficient to entitle GZ to jury instructions on self-defense, w/o GZ ever taking the stand.

So..... will Nelson DENY this West res gestae motion?

Seems the law don't matter?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I dunno, previously I would say DENY for sure, but Nelson has been acting strangely of late, and might rule in accordance with law.

Looks like reversible error if she denies in view of cases cited by West.

I think she looked to be acting properly when she reversed 2 of BDLR's Juror strikes... but in fairness they were all in a bit of a hurry, and perhaps in her haste she made a mistake and ruled properly? Or perhaps her meds had not kicked in after lunch? She was certainly back to "type" yesterday...

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light