'Home intruder' law vague to judge. Refuses to dismiss murder charge.

[Knotthead]

New details on this case

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15168687.htm

 

[Jeff White]

The text of the article:

Prosecutors tell how lamp was used in slaying
DEFENDANT CLAIMS SELF-DEFENSE
By Brandon Ortiz
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER


Charlie Browning and Jeannie Lowe waited in a car while Keith Newberg went into James Adam Clem's apartment to collect money Clem owed him for cocaine, prosecutors said.

Twenty minutes passed, and Newberg never came out.

But Clem did, carrying a pitcher of Kool-Aid and Newberg's cell phone -- with blood on his hands and face, Lowe testified yesterday on the first day of Clem's murder trial. Clem told Lowe, Newberg's girlfriend, that she shouldn't go into the apartment but that Newberg would be out soon, she said.

Clem ran into nearby woods and disposed of his bloody clothes, prosecutors said.

Lowe called Lexington police, who broke down the door of Clem's Belleau Wood apartment. Inside, they saw blood covering the floor and some walls. Newberg was found wrapped in a moving truck's furniture pad, a patrol officer testified. He was barely breathing.

Clem had bashed Newberg in the head five times with a lamp, cracking his skull and flattening his brain the night of Aug. 9, 2004, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Ramona Little said. Newberg died at the University of Kentucky Hospital.

The bronze lamp, which Little showed to jurors, was severely dented and warped. It appeared to have dried blood on it.

Defense attorney Tucker Richardson said Clem hit Newberg in self-defense after Newberg attacked him.

Clem's life was in shambles, Richardson said. He was addicted to crack cocaine, bills were mounting, and his girlfriend and daughter had recently moved out of his home.

Clem was also on a three-day cocaine binge and displaying classic drug-induced signs of paranoia, the defense attorney said.

Richardson said medical evidence will show that Newberg had bruises on his hands and knuckles, indicating Newberg punched Clem in the face. But Richardson also acknowledged that a photo of Clem taken after the incident showed no visible bruises and a few scrapes and cuts.

In cross-examination of Lowe, defense attorney Russell Baldani noted that Lowe had been accused of assaulting Newberg in March 2002. A jury found her not guilty.

In that case Lowe had called 911, but she was the one who was arrested when police arrived, Baldani said. Lowe told the jury that Newberg "went off" on her and would not let her leave their apartment, Baldani said.

"You went into that trial and said I'm not guilty of this because I was defending myself, right?" Baldani said.

Lowe denied Baldani's assertion that Newberg had a reputation for being violent.

"He wasn't a violent person," Lowe said. "Not that I'm aware of."

Last week, Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac rejected a defense motion to dismiss Clem's murder charges because of a recently enacted "home-intruder" law that grants immunity to somebody who uses deadly force against a robber or attacker.

Some prosecutors have criticized the law as being too broad and vague.

Yesterday, jurors were asked whether they could follow the new law regardless of their personal opinions.

"As long as I understand the law I can follow it," a juror said.

Later, the judge said, "It's confusing for all of us."
Reach Brandon Ortiz at (859) 231-1443, 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 1443, or [email protected].

Why would the castle doctrine law even apply? It wasn't law in 2004 when the incident occurred. Aren't most cases tried under the laws that were in effect when the crime occurred? Sound like the castle doctrine law was a last minute attempt by the defense attorney to avoid a murder conviction.

I think Clem will wish he'd have pled out by the time the trial is over....

Jeff

 

[XDKingslayer]

So then you'll retract this:

For months I've been posting that the Castle Doctrine laws were not a license to kill anyone in your home. For months I've said that the actual circumstances will be looked into and if the police and prosecutor believed the homeowner committed a murder they could be and would be prosecuted.

The article give almost no details of what happened, but I would bet that there was some kind of prior relationship between the homeowner and the intruder/victim.

I hope that all of you guys who keep the file handy so you can notch your carry piece to show the good old boys down at the gunshop after you bag your intruder will wake up now.....The use of deadly force is a serious matter and the authorities will always treat it as such.

Jeff

Right? Seeing as none of us CCW'ers are drug addicts your tirade really doesn't apply any longer.

 

[Jeff White]

Nope, it stands....Castle Doctrine Laws are not a license to kill and anyone who thinks they can kill someone just because the killing occurs in his home deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

You have to know the law. You have to know how the courts interpret the law. You can't kill someone in your home and just expect immunity because the castle doctrine law exists. The circumstances of the death will be investigated and if there is something that would make the police and prosecutor believe that it wasn't exactly a clear cut case of self defense, expect to be charged.

There is still a responsibility to act in a reasonable manner.

BTW, I'm sure there are as many drug addicts with CCW permits as there are in any other segement of the population. All a CCW permit says is that the holder has passed a criminal background check. In some states that doesn't even include forwarding of fingerprints. Sorry but day care workers and school bus drivers go through the same rudimentary background checks. You'll find drug addicts and users in just about every population group you can think of. That includes the police and the military and both of those segements of the population conduct regular, random drug testing. CCW holders are just like anyone else.

Jeff

 

[iuindy2l]

He took a deal

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15181042.htm

 

[XDKingslayer]

Nope, it stands....

It shouldn't. None of us have stated that will we get away with killing someone just because it's in our home. We have all stated we will not hesitate to kill someone in our home if WE (not you) believe they are a threat.

You continiously sit up on your hypothetical "High Road" and look down at your nose at those of us who are the low road we like to call reality. You continiously group us a blood thirsty animals simply because we chose to defend our homes, our possessions, and ourselves. Your remark of us keeping a file handy to notch our guns is proof.

The key here is your statement of "You have to know the law." which you clearly don't fully grasp that there are states other than your own, that there are other laws other than your own, that they might be different, and that they have been challenged numberous times under circumstances that people post here, each and every day, without the shooter being found guilty.

Those of us who will openly say we will shoot a threat in our home more than likely will. We will make that decision. We will suffer the circumstances related to that decision. And we are prepared for that. It's not your desicion, it's not Mas Ayoob's or any other professionals decision, it's our own. We are the ones standing there. We are the ones tasked with protecting our families. Not you. If you feel that we are nothing but blood thirsty animals then the thin air up there on the "High Road" is effecting your mind.

There is no "High Road" to killing someone whether you feel it's justified or not. I hope you aren't ever put in that position, not because I like you or feel for you, but because I honestly think, that in that situation, you will fail. You will hesitate, you will worry about the legal rammifications, you will worry if you are justified, and that hesitation will kill you or someone you love. You react the way you train and the way you train your mind is obvious here. I am prepared to protect myself and my family at any cost regardless of situation, regardless of repercussion, if I feel it is necessary. I'm prepared to sit in front of a jury who will decide my fate for doing so. I would rather be the man in jail glad my family is alive than the free man crying because his is dead.

Your "High Road" is a myth in each and every aspect. Especially when it comes to gun ownership in itself. I have said it once and I will say it again. If you honestly think that how you conduct yourself in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd will effect their position you are a fool. They are not going to ban all of our guns and leave a special amendment allowing Jeff White to keep his because he's such a nice guy.

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

I'm sure there are as many drug addicts with CCW permits as there are in any other segement of the population

Source, please.

 

[Jeff White]

Glock-A-Roo,
Drug addiction and use is prevalent throughout every part of our society. It's even found in those subsets of our society that are subject to mandatory drug testing such as police, military and health care workers. It would be a disingenuous to suggest that people holding a CCW permit did not abuse drugs in the same numbers that the rest of society does.

The possession of a CCW permit doesn't make anyone a super citizen. It doesn't mean that that person is less likely to have the same human weaknesses that other people do. All it means is that the person has no criminal history, In some states it may mean that the holder has passed a rudimentary training course. That's it, that's all it means. It's not a state good citizenship award. It's no guarantee of anything.

Jeff

 

[Phetro]

However, it seems like the law still works; if the jury finds that the BG was an intruder, that should be the end of the criminal case, so the defense really just has to prove one element to make the entire prosecution moot. And that should preclude any further civil suits.

Actually, no. The homeowner only has to have reason to believe that his home is being or has been invaded. The "reasonable person" test is apparently too much for this pea-brain judge and the other leftist "critics" of the law to understand. Their very existence fails the reason test.