Dearborn Heights, MI, Man Convicted of Killing

[MachIVshooter]

So the third obvious thing to not do is to make statements to the police that go beyond establishing yourself as the victim and pointing out pertinent evidence at the scene.

This. The man's conviction probably hinged a great deal more on his inconsistencies and poorly thought out, poorly articulated arguments than on what actually happened.

Most of us here have probably seen this, but it's worth linking again:

Don't talk to the police

The speaker makes excellent points and great examples of how even a truly innocent person can ensnare themselves with seemingly benign statements.

Most States allow a conviction on a lesser included offense. One thing that occurs to me, but this is just a guess, Michigan might allow to some extent alternate verdicts. So if, for some reason, the conviction on the murder charge gets tossed on appeal, e. g., faulty jury instructions on murder, or insufficient evidence as a matter of law of malice, etc., the manslaughter conviction could stand avoiding a need for a new trial.

How would that not be preemptive double jeopardy?

 

[RustyShackelford]

LC's remarks....

I agree with most of LC's remarks but I stress that home owners or small business owners in "rough areas" get security or CCTV units if possible.
Decent home security systems start at $300.00. New DV units are cheaper all the time. Even a loud alarm or noise might help(but not always).

I'd add that some neighborhoods or urban areas are just unsafe.

When I sat on my county's special homicide grand jury in 2005/2006, we had a murder case that started with a victim laying dead in the street(front yard) for approx 12 hours before any residents contacted 911/law enforcement.
Some people honestly just do not care. :banghead:

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Most of us here have probably seen this, but it's worth linking again:

Don't talk to the police...

Not necessarily the best idea if you'll be claiming self defense. Discussed at length here.

...How would that not be preemptive double jeopardy?...

Double jeopardy doesn't apply when a conviction is overturned on appeal. It happens all the time: a defendant wins his appeal and gets a new trial.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not necessarily the best idea if you'll be claiming self defense. Discussed at length here.

I was in agreement with Kleanbore, that you want to identify yourself, establish yourself as a defending victim, and help point out evidence & witnesses, but nothing more.

The reason I (re)posted that video is for the exact reason I mentioned; excellent points and great examples of how even a truly innocent person can ensnare themselves with seemingly benign statements.

That applies to SD claims as well. Making a statement while you're rattled that is later contradicted by you, a witness or material evidence will call into question your credibility in it's entirety, or at the very least the accuracy of your recollection of events. The statement may have been completely irrelevant to the situation, but it doesn't matter. That video demonstrates how easily anything you say can and will be used against you.

Yes, you want to be cooperative, but not to your own detriment. Give the responding officers/investigators enough information for them to consider approaching the investigation as a self defense situation, and then wait until you've at least had time to calm down and collect yourself, preferably having spoken with an attorney, before you say anything more.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I was in agreement with Kleanbore, that you want to identify yourself, establish yourself as a defending victim, and help point out evidence & witnesses, but nothing more.

The reason I (re)posted that video is for the exact reason I mentioned; excellent points and great examples of how even a truly innocent person can ensnare themselves with seemingly benign statements....

Fair enough, but we still must be clear.

1. In a self defense situation, it can be important to provide certain information initially. That's been discussed many times here, and it is different from the recommendations generally applicable to other sorts of police encounters.
   
   
2. And even in a self defense situation it's better to say nothing than to say the wrong things. But it's better yet to say the right things.
   
   
3. And under some circumstances your silence can be used against you (Salinas v. Texas (U. S. Supreme Court, No. 12-246, 2013)).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You know, it really didn't help Wafer's position to have both claimed that the shooting was an accident and to have claimed that he pulled the trigger intentionally.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-crime-dearbornheights-idUSKBN0G728C20140807

 

[Frank Ettin]

You know, it really didn't help Wafer's position to have both claimed that the shooting was an accident and to have claimed that he pulled the trigger intentionally.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-crime-dearbornheights-idUSKBN0G728C20140807

Yup, that would be fatal to a self defense claim.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....