-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
ODT attorneys....Can your dust cover prove premeditated murder in a self defense scenario?
- Thread starter Tactical Beaver
- Start date
Has it been appealed?
The taking of a hunan life is nothing to be taken lightly and people who decorate deadly firearms like Christmas trees are far too eager.
I've always been told that if you have favorable law on your side but less attractive facts, go with a bench trial. If you have good facts, but you broke the law, go with a jury trial.
Saw a pair of 1911 grips with a Confederate flag on them and thought it probably won't be a problem in Ellijay but you better hope you never have to use that gun in Atlanta. Keep'em stock and you don't have to worry.
So was he convicted because he cocked the hammer or because he went home got his gun and came back and shot the guy? I submit the FACT that he cocked the hammer was not the issue that got him convicted BUT that it was the FACT that he went home and got his gun and came back that got him convicted.
It was appealed, and reversed. Fish had already served 5 years in prison. The prosecuting attorney ( who may or may not have been the same who got the conviction, just don't know) elected to not retry the case.
The whole weapons thing was a non-factor in the appeal.
Looking at the totality of the facts, including the venue (Maricopa County, Ariz. home of Sheriff Joe). I am just at a loss to explain the prosecution AND the conviction.
I researched this issue thoroughly several years ago to rebut Ayoob's contention that you shouldn't use hand loads for self defense. I thought he was full of crap about this, and my research confirmed this. At that time (and I don't think its changed) there was only one reported case in the whole United States where hand loads were an issue, and it was an issue because the dufus didn't put enough powder in the shells, not because he had some special high power killer loads he had cooked up (which is what Ayood says is the issue).
That case and the Fish case were the only two I could find where the ammunition was an issue in the prosecution. This is exactly the type subject that has worn out many a computer keyboard from "knowledgeable commentators" , but real life practice does not support the assertion that ammunition or the choice of the gun is kind of factor in the decision to prosecute.
In Maglito, on appeal the conviction was changed from 2nd or 3rd degree murder, to some level of manslaughter -he didn't get a new trial. Frankly, I would have had no problem of convicting him of manslaughter.
If you want to follow a current case with some of the same issues, follow the McIver case in Atlanta, where the defendant is being charged with negligent manslaughter for what he contends was an accidental discharge that killed his wife.
You're missing the point, too. I'm describing things that were presented to the jury by the prosecutor. In the Maglioto case, it was a "cocked hammer and hair trigger." In the Fish case, it was a "extremely powerful handgun designed to kill."
Those weren't key facts in the case. They're color commentary by the prosecutor, heaped onto the case to help create a narrative for the jury.
If you sat on a jury where any amount of deliberation took place, you'd experience that those kinds of words from prosecutors carry weight, particularly when the jury is confronted with other (probably more pertinent), conflicting facts.
People, including jury members, tend to remember highlights. Good lawyers know this and create highlight moments for juries.
Similar threads
