Oyez! Oyez! You are on a THR jury

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

El Tejon

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
18,090
Location
Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
A jury hypothetical:

If you are hearing a murder prosecution that involves a classic fact pattern of self-defense (e.g. decedant invades defendant's home after decedant shot up his home and threatened to kill defendant earlier in the week) involving firearms use by the defendant, how is your decision influenced, if at all, by the fact that the defendant has a conviction for a crime of violence (which will come into evidence) and the defendant is a convicted felon who could not legally possess a firearm?

Do you believe that, since the Defendant is a felon, that he waives his right to self-defense? Waives just his right to self-defense with a firearm? No such waiver?

Do you believe that Necessity would allow the Defendant to arm himself against the violent threats of the decedant? I.e., that it is a worse harm to allow oneself to be murdered than to break statutory prohibition against felons possessing firearms?

Just throwing some things around, tia.:)
 
Murder: Not guilty.

Possession while prohibited: Different case. If I got picked on that one too, somehow, he'd he guilty there.

Is it right? Nope. But it's the law, and the jury doesn't get to debate ethics. Just the letters written in those lawbooks.
 
If the defendant was charged with the felon in posession, there would be no choice but to convict him since he would be violating the law, and the jury's job is not to vote by conscience but b fact. It would definetely be a hard choice, but it's clear. I think I would definetely sway not guilty if he used a defense of, "well i grabbed (insert person living with him/her, who has no record)'s gun to protect myself".

If the evdience showed he actyed in self defense theree would be no choice than to vote not guilty on the murder charge.

That's how I would vote:)
 
Here in Nebraska, you cannot be prosecuted for a weapons charge (such as illegally carrying concealed) if you incriminated yourself by using it in lawful self defense.

In other words, defending yourself trumps any lesser crime you had to break to do so.
 
Zero, in my state, the jury decides the facts and the law. If you don't like the law and don't think it is right, then not guilty.:)

Would a jury instruction to that point of law help you to not guilty on Count II: Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm (which would like be tried as a separate trial)?
 
El T, like any of us are ever going to end up on a jury on a gun related trial. :D Prosecuter sure didn't do a very good job on jury selection.
 
depending on what his crime of violence was in the past (with a deadly weapon or not), I would wait til all the facts are in. Just because there's a law on the books, no matter how clear cut, there is always jury nullification. It doesn't matter how many times the judge issues clear cut but unconstitutional directions on judging via the law, jury nullification is there to prevent authoritarian abuse of the system.

On the murder charge, free to go.
 
Murder - not guilty by reason of self-defence.
Illegal possession of a firearm - I'd need to hear more argument on this first; I don't necessarily believe that having a criminal record should absolutely ban one from having a firearm.
 
the jury doesn't get to debate ethics.
Click to expand...

there would be no choice but to convict him since he would be violating the law, and the jury's job is not to vote by conscience but b fact.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Jury nullification is a jury's refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. ...

John Adams said of jurors: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
Click to expand...
 
Here's a nice one to ponder: (I was a juror on this trial)

A man (250 lbs) very angry with his commercial building landlord (130 lbs) grabs him from behind in a fast-food parking lot and shoves him into his (the defendant's) truck and chokes him for a while, making threats. His final threat is that he is letting the victim/defendant go, but is going to go kill his wife.

The assailant goes to his car, gets in, and backs up near the truck while leaving. The victim has retrieved a revolver from the seat compartment and goes to the window of the car, hiding the revolver behind him, and says, "Please leave my wife alone."

The assailant says, "I have to go kill her now."

The victim (until this point) shoots the man in the face once, killing him instantly.

Verdict?
 
Murder charge: Not guilty, the decedant invaded the defendant's home. Defendant's past convictions have no bearing on the charge IMHO.

Possesion while prohibited: Were I on that jury, I'd vote not guilty there as well. Laws that infringe on a person's rights after their term of incarceration and supervision have expired are repugnant to me.

On the 2nd case: Again not guilty, since the decedent physically assaulted the defendent, then twice verbalized a promise/theat to kill defendant's spouse.
 
I feel that anyone has the right to defend themselves, no matter what their past. Not guilty.

I'm somewhat hypocritical of my own viewpoint if your past happens to involve child molestation, in which case I stop thinking of you as a human being, and thus you have no right to do anything.
 
Here's a nice one to ponder: (I was a juror on this trial)

A man (250 lbs) very angry with his commercial building landlord (130 lbs) grabs him from behind in a fast-food parking lot and shoves him into his (the defendant's) truck and chokes him for a while, making threats. His final threat is that he is letting the victim/defendant go, but is going to go kill his wife.

The assailant goes to his car, gets in, and backs up near the truck while leaving. The victim has retrieved a revolver from the seat compartment and goes to the window of the car, hiding the revolver behind him, and says, "Please leave my wife alone."

The assailant says, "I have to go kill her now."

The victim (until this point) shoots the man in the face once, killing him instantly.

Verdict?
Click to expand...


Any witnesses hear the other guy say he was going to kill the wife? Or was it just defendents word on it?
 
How do I direct a reply/quote to a specific post? I'm just experimenting with the site right now.

The trial went two weeks - there's a great deal of detail. Suffice it to say that it's very likely but not certain that this exactly is what the assailant (a professional bouncer and gambler) said.
 
How do I direct a reply/quote to a specific post? I'm just experimenting with the site right now.

The trial went two weeks - there's a great deal of detail. Suffice it to say that it's very likely but not certain that this exactly is what the assailant (a professional bouncer and gambler) said.
Click to expand...

I am not sure, but in that case, if the smaller man believed the threat, I would have to say not guilty. But then, thats just me :D.

As to quoting, when you post a reply, go over to the button that looks like a speech bubble. This will insert quote endcaps, if you will. I just copy and paste (scroll down while replying) the text I want to quote in between the endcaps, and its hunkydory. :D
 
:evil: I think the defendant needs a new lawyer.......:what: :neener:

If it is a clear cut case of SD, then not guilty.

If there is someone else (hopefully) in the house who can legally own firearms then not guilty of Count II.

(Hint: My cousin Ernie was spending the night at my house. He had gone down to the homeless shelter to help the nuns cook and serve dinner and he was late getting back because he found a injured kitten in the alley behind the mission and took it to the local animal shelter.) Or is that laying it on a little thick ??? :rolleyes: :D

Just as an example of the above G. Gordon Liddy cannot legally own nor possess and firearms. However Mrs. Liddy has quite an extensive collection. ;)
 
Brian - try this:

{quote="name of poster"}Contents of their post{/quote}
Then you post your comments as normal.

Use square brackets, though, not the curly ones indicated - I had to do that so you could see the code itself. HTH
 
In the second case, I'd need to hear testimony about the wife and from the wife.

1) does she own a gun or is there a gun in the house?
2) does she know how to use said gun if its there?
3) If there is no gun or she does not know how to use it, not guilty
4) if she does own/knows how to use it - guilty

you can't infer that there is an immediate threat to the wife if the guy is not in the vicinity of said wife, however, if the wife has no immediate means of defending herself from intended assailant, then I could conclude that justifiable homicide was necessary.
 
I am not sure, but in that case, if the smaller man believed the threat, I would have to say not guilty. But then, thats just me .

As to quoting, when you post a reply, go over to the button that looks like a speech bubble. This will insert quote endcaps, if you will. I just copy and paste (scroll down while replying) the text I want to quote in between the endcaps, and its hunkydory.
Click to expand...

Okay - HTML easy macros.

The jury was black, white, and brown; male and female. One fellow felt it was probably wrong to kill any person for any reason, so the defendant would have to be guilty of second degree murder (options were first, second, & manslaughter). Another felt that maybe it didn't transpire exactly as described. All others went right to 'not guilty'. It two days of reading law pertaining to the situation (reasonable doubt and judge's instructions) to bring them around.

I really hate jury duty and hope it never happens again. I'm on the short list again right now, though. Where the devil are all the other eligible jurists in this burg, anyhow!? :(
 
Murder: Not Guilty.

Posession while prohibited: Guilty, with recommendation to judge for suspended sentence and/or time served if any.
Hopefully the guy's lawyer is able to convince me that the gun wasn't his, but i'm assuming they didn't even try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
  • Poll
Oyez! Oyez! You are on a THR jury...SBS
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
TC-TX
T
Z
  • Locked
Today in the National Park Morning Report
Replies
4
Views
815
bruss01
B
D
  • Locked
A Review of Self Defense (MD Specific, But All Should Read)
Replies
1
Views
964
Spot77
S
B
  • Locked
for Pax, Legal Jeopardy.
Replies
2
Views
468
pax
P
tuj
  • Locked
my wife was on a self-defense case jury
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Sheepdog1968
S
Back
Top