While much of Barlow deals with issues not particularly relevant to Jesse Boyd’s case, what Barlow says about Montana’s assault with a weapon statute and its application to the Barlow case is relevant to understanding Jesse Boyd’s case.
I find that Jesse Boyd has been desperate to avoid the force and effect of the Montana statute (MCA 45-5-213) and avoid having to admit to what he did (point his gun at Brad Terrell’s head) and avoid then trying to sustain a self-defense defense.
I find Jesse Boyd desperate to avoid a trial and to avoid having to “cop a plea”. His fantasy appears to be that he can affect those results via his social media blitz that has been going on for a year now; promoting his false legal/factual narrative.
I think the Barlow case is damning to Jesse Boyd’s lame efforts to escape guilt for his armed assault on Brad Terrell. You are welcome to form your own opinions regarding that. There was a dissent in the Barlow case, but the dissenting judge did state his agreement that Barlow had committed the assault with a firearm as alleged, per MCA 45-5-213.Also, Barlow is planning to request a re-hearing “en banc” of the decision.
Below are 8 screenshots of the excerpts from Barlow dealing with MCA 45-5-213, the Montana statute used to charge Jesse Boyd with assault with a weapon based on Jesse Boyd, without requisite legal provocation, pointing his weapon at Brad Terrell’s head.