Not Guilty!

Wow, SIX,

You know your shit pretty damn good man.

Well, sounds like the Keystone cops.  Cute how the cops neglected to attempt any evidence collection that would be beneficial to your client.  Did they even follow procedure, regarding documenting everyone at the scene (even those from their own department)?  Who made the determination not to print the weapon?  Was it because he was lazy, or just didn't care?  It doesn't take much time or effort to dust and tape the weapon for prints.  So what if he didn't get any of the "victims" prints, he can at least say he follow correct procedure, rather than follow the wild hair up his ass.

Different ammo makers, almost ALWAYS use different types of powders.  Powders burn at different rates, and some will burn almost completely, while others leave lots of unburnt residue.  Differing weights of the same powder (not to mention the fact that if you compound the problem by using powders that have different rates of burn) will leave differing amounts of unburnt powder residue.

I would think that a good lawyer could make an argument regarding the manner in which the investigations were conducted, and thus create some reasonable doubt as to the competence of the state's witnesses.

It worked for OJ, didn't it?

Add the manner in which the scene and evidence was processed, as well as the investigation conducted, to the fact that your client was within the law under ARS Title 13, Chapter 4 (justification for use of force), and provided that he did not at any time step outside of the bounds of the justification statues (say by moving from threatening to using deadly force, heaven forbin in an attempt to "scare" or "warn", without being faced with an actual threat of death or serious bodily injury) then the state has little in the way of a case.

I would think it very likely for a hung jury, which is typical, rather than an outright acquittal.  Remember that nearly all the "jurors" automatically favor the idea that the person charged is guilty, simply because they typically believe the state wouldn't bring charges against someone if they weren't guilty of some crime (God, how I hate that fallacy).  If you play your cards right, there is plenty of room to create a "reasonable doubt".

Of course, you still haven't told us what nice things your client said to the police, when they arrived at the scene, or when he was interviewed.

It wasn't PCSO, was it?

How did the tox screen on your horse come back?

Triple-zeroes.

Does billybadass have a history with violence and firearms?

No firearms history, but history of beating people up.

Did Billybadass have a firearm on his person?

No.

What is the background on the woman's involvement with the two men.

She left one for the other.  Keep in mind that one of the two men is defendant, the other is the guy who beat up my client five days before and produced, but didn't point, a handgun.  My client believes decedent and "the other man" are buddies.

Did your horse have a history of abuse with the woman?

No.  And that is not coming into play at the trial.

This detective is notoriously lazy.  Doing the shoot tests with the rifle is fun, looking for latent fingerprints is mundane, so guess which gets done and which doesn't?

Defendant did yap to the police.  He said the alleged victim did not *verbally* threaten him, but approached him and grabbed gun.  He also told the cops he was afraid decedent would get gun away from him and shoot him with it.  Minor inconsistencies, nothing major.  

I love that.  I can't stand lazy cops (or lazy anything for that matter).

Ask the detective if he has investigated any other shootings, and particularly officer involved shootings (preferably where the individual tried to take away the officers gun).  Would he think it prudent to dust in those instances?  Why would he dust when an officer is involved, but not in this case?  Isn't everyone supposed to receive the same level of service, regardless of the class or occupation?  I guarantee that if he (or another officer) were involved in a shooting where the individual had attempted a weapon disarming, he would want that weapon dusted.

Failure to do your job, is failure to do your job.  Lack of "excitement" is not a reason fon misfeasance, and I would pray that is is not malfeasance.  We don't get to pick and choose which parts of the job we get to perform, especially based on how exciting or mundane the task is.

If he can't summon up enough will to perform the mundane, I wonder what other things he may have missed.  His ability to perform an unsatisfactory weapons/ammo evaluation, doesn't help things any.

Just thought I'd mention how Wisconsin deals with a perceived aggressor (i.e., Chairborne's client coming out of the "house" with a rifle) who withdraws from the fight.

Obviously it's next to impossible for us to make reach an educated opinion about this guy's guilt from the limited information we have here.  But, to whatever extent he "provoked" things by coming out of his camper, at least in Wisconsin the act of retreating would allow him to regain the self defense privilege.

Interesting post.  Let us know what happens Chairborne.

If anything, this makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR the negative consequences that you WILL suffer if you shoot someone in self defense.  If not in criminal court, at the very least in civil court.  Though I'd rather sell my house litigating the case to live in a camper with my family than be dead....

AZ has something similar, the statute is in regards to physical force specifically not deadly physical force.

[url]http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00404.htm[/url]

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

[B](a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. [/B]

All I have to say -

Good luck to all.

Sorry it happened.

The guy that got shot sounds like he had it comming.

I hope it all works out for everyone involved.

Chairborne - one thought for you though - I am damm proud to see that someone is working hard on behalf of your client. You and others like you are why we have the greatest legal system (and country) in the world - please continue to work hard for that man. Even though based on what you have described - I'd probably find him guilty. I am pleased to see you exploring every avenue on his behalf. Good job. Good luck to all.

Chairborne-
Your client was living in a camper?  Was it on the back of a truck, or just on blocks?  I'm thinking if it were on blocks, and this 6' 4" 220lb high as a kite guy laid into it with a shoulder, it might have come tumbling down.  That would be the reason for exiting the residence.

Also, you have the right in NC to confront a tresspasser, and if the tresspasser attempts to kill you (ripping the gun away from you to do it with) you are allowed to use deadly force.

I would have to vote the guy not guilty.

Not guilty.  No way to contact the police, assaulted on his property.  I place the burden of culpability on the party that tresspassed and made the threats, then committed the assault and battery.  

shooter

Not guilty - The defendant was justified in A) confronting the shootee on defendant's property, given his knowledge of the relationship with prior assailant.  The defendant was B) Justified in shooting the shootee given the physical scuffle.

FWIW - Defendant MIGHT be able to get acquitted of a manslaughter or murdrer 2 charge even under Caliban law.  We had a somewhat similar case in San Diego a couple of years ago.  DA felt shooting was unjustified but jury disagreed and acquitted the defendant.

I am not familiar with AZ law but understand that it is similar to CA in regards to use of deadly force against an uninvited and hostile visitor on one's own property.

Best of luck to you and your client!

He was driving after getting liquored up at two different bars.  He had his friend with him.  Without word to his friend, he turned into my client's property (if you can call it that, actually he was renting space to put his camper).  He says something to the effect of, "I gotta take care of something, I'll be right back."  Take care of what?  Welllll . . .

The rifle, once upon a time, and unbeknownst to my client, belonged to alleged victim's wife.  He allegedly sold it for dope, although we can't prove that.  The person who got it, then transferred it to another person.  That person then lent it to my client after the other bad guy threatened my client.  Alleged victim got word that client had "his" rifle.  So he may have been attempting a little self-help to get this rifle back.  My client, however, had no idea alleged victim ever had owned the rifle, and all he knew was the guy approached, didn't issue any verbal threats, and just said something to the effect of "Gimme that!" and tried to get it from client.

Today we had medical examiner on, who testified decedent was shot with bullet entering abdomen going upward, consistent with defendant being on ground during shooting.  Good.  But, no stippling associated with close-range shot on decedent.

Evidence tech testified the three brass recovered were dispersed, indicating rifle was moving during the firing.  Lab tech testified one piece of gunpowder was found on decedent's shirt, and he cannot make a conclusion as to the distance of the shot except that it was not a contact shot.

Then we got into an argument about whether the "C" on the bottom of CCI ammo is the same or different than the "U" on the Union Metallic Cartridge ammo.  He said he would have to look under a microscope.  Gimme a break!  They are very different.  That will be up to the jury to determine.  This is significant because client fired UMC ammo and cops tested for stippling with CCI ammo.  It's my fault for asking the question without knowing what answer I would get, and this guy after all works for the state.  But whose to think this guy would argue about a pretty obvious point like that?

Also FYI, defendant's "front door" faces away from the street and where decedent parked.  There's only one door, and this is a camper on the ground.

More fun and games tomorrow . . . I would never want to go through this myself as a defendant.  

What a strange universe.  .22 Rimfire kills a 6'2" 220lb guy, but 5.56 only wounds Skinny Somalians.(insert confused expression)

Oh, and Not Guilty.  "They needed killin."

Edited to add: This is the classic outcome of two guys yanking on a rifle. When Perp A yanks on the muzzle, Homeowner B tightens his grip on the rifle, Including The Trigger.

From what I have read: not guilty. Why:

A small camper is not a good to confront an aggressor. Plus they was no escape route except the front door, and that would have been blocked by the aggressor. So, it makes sense that he would rather confront him where he could possibly get away. Now, he also would not want to confront this guy unarmed, given his previous experiences and given what this guy said right before coming at him. Now when he got out, he proceeded to back away and warn the aggressor. Aggressor failed to heed the warnings, and then attempted to attack and take the gun away. He waited until the last possible minute to shoot him as well. Given this, he was justified in shooting the guy.

NOT GUILTY

Being in law enforcement for over twenty years, I can't believe the judge would let the rifle stippling test in. It is got to be an invalid test and serves no use. Different lot numbers of ammo usually mean different types of powder used in manufacture not to even mention different manufacture of the ammo. If you can educate the jury, you should be able turn there test around for your good. If his home was a camping trailer with just one door and he was in fear of being trapped as most camping trailers have small windows. In a perfect world, the rifle should have been taken back to crime lab and fumed. The prints would probably been smeared if he (victim)had grabbed the barrel-this would have been almost as good as the victim's prints. Hate to be the detective that did not request to have this processed. What is the size different of the victim versus defendant? You never said what the blood alcohol of the victim was. I must have misread, I thought victim was on meth at the time of attack? The entry angle was no doubt in your client's favor. Did he report the first fight or contact with victim to the Police? Interesting, too bad this one is not on court TV like OJ's, then you could have an unlimited staff of other lawyers to comment on the case at ever break giving suggestions.

I didn't move to keep it out, although perhaps I should have in retrospect.  I think the problems with the test go to its weight, not its admissibility.  And I have been hammering on the problems.



D:  6 foot, 170, V:  6-4, 220.  Alleged V was large, powerful-looking, tattooed, and had a "badass-looking" mustache.  Most people would find him quite intimidating.  Slight irony:  He was wearing a "Colt Revolvers" belt buckle.  I guess it coulda been worse had he been wearing a "Ruger" belt buckle.



BAC .04, with recent meth use judging from the ratio of meth in system to metabolites of meth.  His friend, who began drinking after decedent did, showed slurred speech and odor of alcohol.



Yes.



Yes.



First fight, meaning the problems with the other guys a few days before?  Yes.  

Like you said about OJ, I put this stuff on here kinda brainstorming.  Some people have raised some very valid points that should have occurred to me but did not, so thanks to them.  Also maybe this will educate some of us about certain things.  Here's one:  Although I think my client was justified, he has been in jail since February.  Even if you are entirely innocent, you wouldn't want that.

And people like that should be free & walking around why?
Sounds like this was a good-riddance killing.

Too Bad it didn't happen in GA, CASE LAW says basically you can shoot whoever is on your property and is threatening you.
That's what I have been told anyway,
don't know how accurate that is.
-chuck

Glad to be of service. [:p]  But the guy was obviously a shooting victim.  The issue is whether it was justified, and from your presentation (which I presume you limited to your side of the case, as any lawyer should do), it sounds like it was.  However:

You're asking???  Yes, of course.  The proper way to test is to use some more of the ammo from the same box (or at least the same brand and lot number) that the shooter used.  If there wasn't any more, the cops should at least try to locate some, or at a minimum use the same brand. . . .  And the same gun, of course, which they presumably have locked up in their evidence room.  Or at a minimum, the same type and barrel length, if they're prohibited from firing it due to rules of evidence.

Eagerly awaiting the verdict. [:D]  Hope you can get him off on the illegal-possession rap after he's declared not guilty on this one.

If you can just convince the jury that the defendant felt trapped in the non secure camping trailer. He was put in fear by a much bigger person which he had a previous run in with. He tried to escape the confrontation by fleeing out the back. What choice did he have? What would the jury do in his shoes? Was he espected of just staying in the trailer and taking an ass whooping? What would have happened if the defendant came in the trailer and found the gun and used it on the defendant? The victim must have been screwed up to approach an armed person. Must have meant to do him bodily harm. If he had only wounded him, the DA's Office probably would not have filed charges as the victim would have had to appear in court and the jury would have seen him as a tush hog. I believe the defendant did the right thing leaving the unsecure trailer and retreating. You would think this would be enough action to help prove self defense. Your client was going to either a victim or defendant.

If you can just convince the jury that the defendant felt trapped in the non secure camping trailer. He was put in fear by a much bigger person which he had a previous run in with. He tried to escape the confrontation by fleeing out the back. What choice did he have? What would the jury do in his shoes? Was he espected of just staying in the trailer and taking an ass whooping? What would have happened if the defendant came in the trailer and found the gun and used it on the defendant? The victim must have been screwed up to approach an armed person. Must have meant to do him bodily harm. If he had only wounded him, the DA's Office probably would not have filed charges as the victim would have had to appear in court and the jury would have seen him as a tush hog. I believe the defendant did the right thing leaving the unsecure trailer and retreating. You would think this would be enough action to help prove self defense. Your client was going to either a victim or defendant.