General Geoff said:
It merely needs to be explained that such a device is in place for liability purposes ONLY, and is not a safety device per se,...
Carl N. Brown said:
...there are good arguments against a "safety" device that can encourage unsafe behavior...
Too "inside baseball" to resonate with non-gun oriented jurors. These kind of technical arguments are hard to get across to a jury. Remember that the prosecutor is going to be excluding from the jury folks you know about, or have an interest, in guns.
A word about jury selection --
You start with a group of people. The prosecution and defense each asks questions of the prospective jurors, and each side gets to challenge (i. e., have removed) people he doesn't want on the jury. Challenges can be either for cause, i. e., when a prospective juror has expressed or demonstrated a clear prejudice, or peremptory, i. e., without cause (just because I feel like it). Each side has a specified number of peremptory challenges.
Now, while going through voire dire, the process of questioning prospective jurors, the prosecutor will be using his peremptory challenges to remove anyone who is an IPSC competitor or who has gone to Gunsite or has a gun, etc. And indeed, the prosecutor might even be able to successfully challenge some of those folks for cause and not have to use some of his peremptory challenges. (My wife, as a prospective juror, was once successfully challenged for cause by the defense in an armed robbery trial when she said that she was an NRA member and had strong negative feelings about someone misusing a gun for criminal activity.)
In the meantime, the defense will be kicking off the jury the Brady Campaign contributors and those who think guns should be banned.
So when this process is all done, who is going to be left on the jury -- a bunch of folks who are middle of the road, fence sitters, people not necessarily virulently anit-gun, but probably with no special knowledge of, or interest in guns. At least a few, and maybe many, of your jurors may have never even fired a gun. They may be willing to grant that someone could properly defend his life using a gun. But too many technical arguments about the attributes and mechanisms of guns -- how they work and what qualities are tactically desirable -- will cause their eyes to glaze over like the Easter ham.
Carl N. Brown said:
kyo said:
...I don't know what kind of decent defense lawyer would let 12 people who are scared of guns judge me...
So, Carl, it's unlikely that you'd be on the jury in this kind of case. And yes, kyo, your lawyer will be trying to limit the number of people on your jury who are down right scared of guns, but there's no guarantee he'll be able to avoid such jurors entirely.
Carl N. Brown said:
...The issue should be what was the motive and intent of the user. Jury instructions should be that self-defense is acting out of fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm if the defender does not act then and there. Style of gun should be as irrelevant as style of footwear....
Yes, but the jury will get to infer that from all available factors. And conclusions the jury reaches about the defendant's character will affect how they evaluate the available evidence in the process of making those inferences.
Let's consider in a little more detail what the defense of "self defense" means.
Ordinarily, in a criminal prosecution the state must prove the elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the crime charged, and for which the defendant is on trial, is manslaughter, the state must in general prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was there; (2) the defendant shot the decedent; and (3) the defendant intended to shoot the decedent. In defending the charge, the defendant merely needs to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to any one of these elements. The defendant can try to cast doubt on the state's claim that he was there (alibi defense); that he pulled the trigger (some other dude done it) or that he intended to shoot the decedent (the gun went off by accident). But all of that is completely inapplicable when the defendant pleads self defense.
If you claim self defense, the prosecution doesn't have to prove, at all, that you were there, that you shot the decedent or that you intended to shoot the decedent, because you will have admitted each of those element of the crime of manslaughter. If you are claiming self defense you necessarily must admit that you (1) you were there; (2) you shot the decedent; and (3) you intended to shoot the decedent. You have made a
prima facie case against yourself for the prosecutor, and he doesn't have to prove any of the things he ordinarily would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have admitted it all.
Your defense is that your act of violence on another human being was legally justified. The allocation of the burden of proof burden of persuasion between the prosecution and defense in a self defense case varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you will at least have to put forward evidence establishing a
prima facie case of justification according to the standard applicable to the use of lethal force in self defense in your jurisdiction.
Since you are claiming self defense, you will need to tell your story, and that puts your credibility at issue. And since the essence of a claim of self defense is the reasonableness of your perception and judgment that you were in immediate jeopardy. And of course, your lawyer will probably want to introduce evidence of your good character and judgment. All that arguably opens things up for the prosecutor to introduce evidence that might call into question your judgment -- such as the fact that you disabled a safety device to make your gun, in your view, a more efficient engine of destruction.
So if, as is likely, you'll want to introduce evidence for the proposition that you are a peaceful person who reasonably believed you had no options but to shoot another human to save your own life, it's going to be tough for the judge not to let the prosecution introduce evidence that might suggest that in fact you were of a reckless and trigger happy disposition.
And as Massad Ayoob has pointed out, above
massad ayoob said:
...the accusing side is absolutely allowed to establish "continuing patterns of negligent or reckless behavior," and removing safety devices from lethal weapons lands square in that ballpark.
kyo said:
...the P345 mag disconnect has made the gun have problems,...
Sounds like a good reason to choose a different gun for self defense.
As a general rule in any litigation, the less you have to explain the better. Remember, a prosecutor is not going to be prosecuting you if all he has is that you disabled a safety device. If you're being prosecuted, you will have enough problems with your situation that the DA figures he'll be able to get a jury to find you guilty. Disabling a safety device will be only one of your problems, but it is an avoidable one. I prefer to eliminate as many avoidable problems as possible before hand, so that I and my lawyer can focus on dealing with the unavoidable ones.
I tend to think of the issue in terms of a paraphrase of Pascal's wager: I don't know it disabling a safety device on my gun (or using handloads, or adjusting my trigger to be very light) will adversely affect the outcome if I am on trial for using my gun in what I claim was self defense, but I really have nothing to gain by disabling the safety device (etc.) even if it won't affect the outcome (because I can get adequate performance without engaging in those behaviors -- i. e., by using a different gun, learning to better manage the one I have, using quality, commercial ammunition, etc.). However, I have a great deal to lose if disabling the safety device (etc.) would adversely affect the outcome.