when self defense/home invasion turns into 1st degree murder

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gym: I would say it's safe to assume there will be an Appeal, I predict that the outcome of the appeal could reverse the decision of the jury.... I just think that if the higher courts look at tis , that the judges will have a different interpretation of the law, than the jury did.

The jury reached its verdict on the basis of the facts presented. The interpretation of the law was embodied in the jury instructions, and it was consistent with a number of precedential appellate rulings.

Lets wait a year and see how it goes. At this point things likely can't get worse for the defendant, but all to often I have seen these types of cases reversed or a different end result occur on appeal.

If there is an appeal, the court could send the case back for a new trial.

Unlikely, I think.

When they allow the evidence in, that they excluded from the jury, IMHO, it will just be a matter of the letter of the law rather than the emotional outcome that it became.

Can you list any relevant evidence that was not admitted under the governing rules of evidence?

 

[Sam1911]

Or, in my opinion, would have severely harmed that claim, if admitted.

To reiterate, presumptions in favor of the defender's need to shoot (such as "castle doctrine" laws encode) are rebuttable. If some factor is brought to light that suggests the defender knew or had reason to know that s/he was not truly in danger, the presumption (and often the whole self-defense claim) evaporates.

Any evidence presented that showed the accused knew who the intruders were, what they were after, and their history of non-violent crime (and, in fact that he WANTED them to enter his trap) would cast fatal (pun intended) light on his claim to fear for his life.

No reasonable fear of death = no sustainable claim of self defense = guilty as charged.

 

[JoePfeiffer]

Sam 1911, I wish this forum had a "like" button. Your clear, cogent explanations of the issues in this case have been *extremely* valuable.

 

[d2wing]

He was found guilty of all 4 counts and is sentenced to life. As the father of one of the victims said there are no winners. There is plenty of guilt on all sides.

 

[gym]

They left out the fact that these people did burglaries/robberies as a routine criminal enterprise. They left out all of the prior crimes committed, from what I just read in the post with the sentencing. And as far as the letter of the law goes, if it's worded in a certain way, just one word or sentence can change the outcome. I have seen cases that were more cut and dry than this one, reversed on appeal.
If the law says that he was allowed to shoot regardless of what the jury felt was wrong, he could either get a retrial, or a trial by an appellate court judge.
Quote: In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.

In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case: End Quote
Sometimes just one word, can get a case thrown out, I don't clain to have followed this particular trial, but have seen others where it was just one word, that got the verdict overturned, we will see, if they allow the appeal.
It may not matter as to what he wanted, it may be legally impertinent if the law is written in such a way that he is allowed to shoot under any circumstance. I don't know this to be a fact, but people are always surprised to see cut and dry cases overturned, on a rule of law being violated.
IE: the judge said or chose to give assertions to a juror or the jury that were not factual or in accordance with the case law. Never say never, things don't necessarily need to make sense to us as laymen, in order to invalidate a court ruling. Also evidence of other crimes committed by these two may come to light and me admissible in the appeals process that may be of amore violent nature. No one can say for sure what "might happen"

 

[silicosys4]

They left out the fact that these people did burglaries/robberies as a routine criminal enterprise. They left out all of the prior crimes committed, from what I just read in the post with the sentencing. And as far as the letter of the law goes, if it's worded in a certain way, just one word or sentence can change the outcome. I have seen cases that were more cut and dry than this one, reversed on appeal.
If the law says that he was allowed to shoot regardless of what the jury felt was wrong, he could either get a retrial, or a trial by an appellate court judge.
Quote: In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.

In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case: End Quote
Sometimes just one word, can get a case thrown out, I don't clain to have followed this particular trial, but have seen others where it was just one word, that got the verdict overturned, we will see, if they allow the appeal.

You really should read up on the facts of this particular trial and read into what sam1911 has said as far as the admissibility of the prior burglaries, and all other "character judgements". All of that is inadmissible, and rightly so. The facts of the trial do not support a reasonable self defense plea, and that fact is so cut and dry it took a jury three hours to find him guilty on all four counts. That's about as fast as it can be, they were wholly convinced before even deliberating.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, thanks, Joe. It isn't a simple issue, especially in that it goes counter-intuitively to what I think most Americans believe about one's right to property and self-defense. We have an ingrained aesthetic that says, if you violate the sanctity of "me and mine" you are subject to whatever hellfire and brimstone I'm willing and able to bring down on you.

Hence the popularity of those droll faux warning signs like, "If you're found here tonight, you'll be found here tomorrow!", and "Nothing in here is worth your life..." -- all of which rather baldly suggest the message that the owner feels within his rights to kill someone for intruding and/or theft.

Too many John Wayne movies where the "law of the old west" says the good guy can hang the bad guy for suspicion of cattle rustling, or old action dramas with the good guy yelling after a fleeing burglar, "STOP or I'll SHOOT!" and then firing a warning shot or two.

That sort of thing has built and reinforced a really distorted view of self defense, home defense, and the law.

Occasionally some folks are forthright enough to say, "I believe if you break into my home I should be able to execute you," but the fact is that the law does not give you -- or any private citizen -- the right to decide life or death, EVER. And that means that western society, in its more deeply reasoning aspects, has not agreed with that view of "justice" in many hundreds of years.

 

[Sam1911]

They left out the fact that these people did burglaries/robberies as a routine criminal enterprise. They left out all of the prior crimes committed, from what I just read in the post with the sentencing.

Gym, re-read post 152.

 

[gym]

I am not arguing with you argument nor the logic behind it. Merely that there have been cases that have been overturned on appeal, that no one ever thought had any merit.
Even a case that I know of where the guy pleaded guilty got thirty years, and was out in 1 1/2 years, on a technicality. It happens. Also where one party took guilty plea, and the other plead not guilty, and the not guilty got out and the Guilty did 6 years, both on appeal. So it doesn't have to make sense is what I am saying, if there was one wrong procedural error, the case can go up in flames. I am not predicting that he will get off, only that it does happen.
Also that state of mind may be superseded by written law. We will only know if it goes to the appeals court next. I am not on the side of the shooter only argue the rule of law can be altered by good attorneys.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh. Ok. So it could be reversed. I guess that's possible. Just because we can't see how that might be doesn't mean the stars couldn't align just right to let him off.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Oh. Ok. So it could be reversed. I guess that's possible. Just because we can't see how that might be doesn't mean the stars couldn't align just right to let him off.

I don't think so. I mean, even if the Defense Attorney was 1/3 Johnny Cochrane, 1/3 Percy Foreman and 1/3 Lucifer and...the appeals judge was Charlie Manson - I still don't think this guy has a chance of winning an appeal.

But...that's just my opinion based on a 3-hour Jury Deliberation that must have included a 1-hour lunch, a 30 minute orientation and vote and a 30 minute write-up of opinion. In other words....ultra-Fast Verdict!

 

[gym]

See where it says "errors of law, that's what I am talking about. Not weather you are correct, sometimes this stuff just blows up under the microscope of the appeals process. Quote:"Trials, at which witnesses and other evidence are presented to a jury or judge in order to determine the truth or facts regarding a particular case, are held only in courts with original jurisdiction, i.e., courts in which a lawsuit is originally (and properly) filed and which have the power to accept evidence from witnesses and make factual and legal determinations regarding the evidence presented. Such trial courts also determine punishments (in criminal cases) and remedies (in civil cases). Because the courts of appeals possess only appellate jurisdiction, they do not hold trials. Instead, appeals courts review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. Accordingly, an appeals court considers only the record (that is, the papers the parties filed and the transcripts and any exhibits from any trial) from the trial court, and the legal arguments of the parties. These arguments, which are presented in written form, and can range in length from dozens to hundreds of pages, are ironically known as "briefs". Sometimes lawyers are permitted to add to their written briefs with oral arguments before the appeals judges. At such hearings, only the parties' lawyers speak to the court. End Quote:
Don't take it the wrong way, I agree with you, but one silly little error, during the course of thousands of pages of transcripts, can sink an otherwise righteous case. That's our silly system

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gym: They left out the fact that these people did burglaries/robberies as a routine criminal enterprise.

As a matter of law, none of that is admissible anywhere.

Now, in a self defense case in which the question is whether the defender had had reason to believe that he or she was in immediate peril, there are a couple of states (Arizona and Massachusetts, the last time I checked) in which evidence relevant to that question would be admissible, but nowhere is the criminal past of the victims relevant in any other way.

And as far as the letter of the law goes, if it's worded in a certain way, just one word or sentence can change the outcome. I have seen cases that were more cut and dry than this one, reversed on appeal.

Appellate courts have already ruled on the law in question.

If the law says that he was allowed to shoot regardless of what the jury felt was wrong, he could either get a retrial, or a trial by an appellate court judge.

Retrial maybe, but trial in a higher court, no. It doesn't work that way.

BUT: the law says he could not not lawfully shoot with premeditation, and that's not a matter of what the jury "felt was wrong."

 

[leadcounsel]

he's made so many bad-TV mistakes here, insanity is probably his best defense

Insanity occurs when a person doesn't realize what he is/has doing/done is wrong.

The planning, the executions, the botched cover up... those are all signs of a working sound CRIMINAL mind, albeit really stupid, but not insane.

Laying in wait. Parking car down street so as to lure people into a trap. Executing unarmed (teenagers) people who are obviously not a threat. The prejudicial impact of the language, which shows his intent to murder, not defend himself out of fear.

It's also telling that these breakins apparently resulted in no physical harm to anyone, and were nuisance breakins rather than something more serious.

This is something you harden up your property over, not lay in wait to kill people. Invest in a fence, lights, cameras, motion alarms, hardened windows, a loud dog, thorn bushes around your 1st floor windows, thicker steel door, etc. Spend $3000 to really beef up home security, and it's money well spent.

If he were younger, I'd say he should try to plead for a chance to avoid spending his life in prison, maybe get out in a decade or two. Rely on the former breakins as mitigation to get a lighter sentence. Since he's so old, he's going to have to roll the dice on a NG by Self Defense and see what happens. If he's convicted of anything serious he'll spend his remaining days in prison.

While a person should feel safe in his home, on the flip side mischievous harmless kids shouldn't be subject to execution because the broke into someone's house out of boredom. I'd bet the bulk of us on this forum, when we were teens, probably trespassed at one time or another. Do you think death is a fair result?

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Don't take it the wrong way, I agree with you, but one silly little error, during the course of thousands of pages of transcripts, can sink an otherwise righteous case. That's our silly system

I suspect that's a Dog-Whistle message for some audience out there. Personally, I'm not sure what the message is - I just can't hear it - but it is tiresome to hear you ramble on and on and on about how one teeny-weenie technicality could sink such a solid conviction when the likelyhood of that happening is about ZERO.

So...what's the point of your posts?

 

[BSA1]

Gym,

The one thing that most folks don't realize is appeals take money.

It is likely that Smith has used most of his financial assets; savings, IRA's, equity in his home, selling possessions, to pay for the lawyer in the criminal trial. If he doesn't have money to pay for the appeal he will have to hope a public defender group picks up his case.

As Sam1911 asks is what is the basis for a appeal. The most common one is faulty jury instructions by the Judge. A example would be not instructing the Jury that they could find the defendant guilty of a less severe crime such as Murder 2. (I have no idea what the Judges inistructions to the Jury were. This is a common basis for appeal).

The other one that comes to mind is ineffective counsel. This is very hard to prove. O.J. Simpson tried it on his current robbery conviction and it failed. (O.J. argued his lawyer errored by not putting him on the witness stand to testify).

The lawyer's comment that they will take the case to the Supreme Court is a much cow do-do.

Remember no where does it say a person is entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one. Thus Smith's challenge will be to show the errors he chooses would have influenced the jury.

 

[leadcounsel]

appeals take money.

Appeals are cold comfort, and typically take a VERY long time, and a LOT of money. Especially considering that the person awaiting his appeal has no income, and often no external source of income. Every year he sits in jail is a year of income he's out... consider what your life would look like if you fast forward 3 years with no income, and presumably most/all your friends/loved ones long abandoned you. Quite bleak financially speaking.

I have won some appeal issues for my clients, but it does take a long time.

Appeals are very narrow legal issues, and are rarely won because it is presumed that the trial judge was correct. It's tough to overcome that presumption.

 

[gym]

Well I guess we will see if some attorney who thinks he can get publicity over this case takes it on, or a benefactor, relative etc. Time will tell. First it needs to be seen if his appeal will be heard. My point is not weather he got what was coming to him, appeals courts review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. Many a guilty man walked out of an appeals court free , just because of an error in procedure.

 

[Agsalaska]

gym,

If you were on the jury would you have convicted?

 

[Frank Ettin]

A few words about the whole question of an appeal:

1. A person convicted by a jury on a criminal charge always has a number of ways to attack the result. He can first ask the trial judge for a new trial or a mistrial. If he skips those steps, or if his requests are denied, he can appeal to a court of appeals.
   
   
2. An appeal is always on questions of law. That's what the court of appeals will look at. The defendant (at the trial and now the appellant) will claim that errors of law were made by the trial judge. The defendant/appellant will also claim that those errors were prejudicial or material (referred to as "reversible error"), i. e., they had the capacity to change the result.
   
   
3. The court of appeals will consider the legal arguments of both sides on the issues of law claimed as error by the defendant/appellant.
   
   
4. The court of appeals can then decide, as to each claimed error, that: (1) the trial judge did not make an error; (2) the ruling was in error, but it was harmless error and wouldn't have changed the result; or (3) the error was reversible error.
   
   
5. If the court of appeals finds reversible error, it will set aside the conviction and order a new trial. The prosecution has the option of bringing the defendant to trial again or dropping the charges.
   
   
6. I've never tired compiling any statistics, but just from reading a lot of court of appeals decisions it seems that most affirm the conviction. If anyone has some actual data, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[gym]

Frank I know of one that involved two guys I grew up with. They sold a large amount of drugs to undercover cops. One pled to a lessor offense, and took 6 years, the other pled not guilty and was looking at 30 years to life.
The one who pled guilty got out on appeal in a year and a half because the judge charged him in his instructions to the jury with facilitation, because he knew that the conspiracy charge was going to fall flat on it's face. On appeal the case was thrown out because they ruled that the judge had no right to charge the defendant, only the prosecutor can do that.
So I have seen a guilty man set free, thus my opinion here is based on fact. The other guy served his full sentence regardless of the fact that the one who pleaded innocent was indeed guilty.
I am not arguing about weather the guy was guilty, only that most people don't know what a good appeals attorney can do. And indeed it cost him a few hundred thousand back in the 80's. But I have no idea what this guys financial position is or who will pop up and offer him assistance.
Perhaps I never should have brought it up, but these things happen all the time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So I have seen a guilty man set free, thus my opinion here is based on fact...

No it's not. Your opinion here is based on your perception of what you think you know about one case.

That case has nothing to do with, and is nothing like, this case. Furthermore, I can virtually guarantee that there was more to the case you cite than you think. What you don't know about the case would probably fill a bookshelf.

One swallow does not a summer make.

 

[gym]

That's untrue, as I took care of the one guys family , it's over 30 years ago. I knew both guys quite well. I don't know where you get off making comments about something that you were not around to see let alone know anything about the case. It's just a fact of life, the legal system is based on how much money you have to pay lawyers.
His attorneys found a point of law where a mistake was made and took full advantage of it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...don't know where you get off making comments about something that you were not around to see let alone know anything about the case...

Because you wrote the following:

...One pled to a lessor offense, and took 6 years, the other pled not guilty and was looking at 30 years to life.
The one who pled guilty got out on appeal in a year and a half because the judge charged him in his instructions to the jury with facilitation, because he knew that the conspiracy charge was going to fall flat on it's face....

That makes no sense at all. First, you say Guy I pleaded guilty. The you say Guy I won an appeal because of an error the judge made in jury instructions. The comments are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one pleads guilty, there is no jury. The only thing left is for the judge to enter a judgment of convicting him and then to sentence him.

So your description of the situation is on its face inaccurate. We don't know what went on, and it appears that after 30 years your recollection of the details is at least fuzzy. And the details matter.

And whatever happened then has nothing to do with the Smith case.

...It's just a fact of life, the legal system is based on how much money you have to pay lawyers.
His attorneys found a point of law where a mistake was made and took full advantage of it....

Even if true, so what? The job of a lawyer is to vigorously, within the rules, further the interests of his client.

But what does any of that have to do with the Smith case. He's been convicted by a jury and sentenced. It's entirely possible that his lawyer will appeal and claim that the trial judge made numerous reversible errors of law. And the prosecution will argue against those claims. And the court of appeals will make a decision. Often that decision will be to affirm the conviction. Sometimes the court of appeals will find reversible error and order a new trial.

There's nothing unusual, surprising or even especially noteworthy about any of that. It's all just part of the normal natural history of criminal litigation.

 

[Jim Watson]

I agree, that according to the court and the news, Mr Smith was illegal, immoral, and sinful. He is either a bad man or, in my opinion, insane, but probably not to the M'Naghten Rule. Or both, which is a concept that sometimes escapes notice.

But what got him where he is today is the coup de grace, the "finishing shots".

I recall a professional trainer who wrote that a criminal intruder in your home is fair game for any tactic. Ambush is smart, not sneaky. But that was maybe 25 years ago, standards change.

My Dad told me that once upon a time, nighttime burglary of an occupied dwelling was a capital crime. So if the homeowner didn't shoot to kill, the yegg was subject to a date with Old Sparky. But that was over 50 years ago, standards change.

Standards change, human nature does not. Criminals commit crimes they can get away with. This pair did... until they didn't.