Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
If you say so. However, appellate findings in many states, and jury instructions based on same, would differ from your opinion.
In most jurisdictions, objective evidence is required, and "mere words" do not begin to suffice.
|
Appellate decisions and jury instructions don't mean diddley. I don't know what appellate decisions you think might affect this but, ultimately, what we're talking about is a jury getting inside the defendant's mind. What the laws say (typically) is that you ARE allowed to use deadly force if you are in fear of death or serious bodily harm. Period.
At trial, should a case go that far, the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury that the defendant was NOT in fear or that it would have been "unreasonable" for him to be in fear. The defendant is saying, "But I WAS in fear."
A judge's instructions cannot tell the jury what to decide. All the judge can do is explain the law -- which in cases such as this will typically involve an explanation of the "reasonable man" theory. It is then up to the jury to decide if the defendant's claim of being in fear was "reasonable" under the circumstances, or not.
I'm not saying that in the case presented here a jury wouldn't convict. They might. I'm saying it's far from being certain that they would. I know for a fact that, based on the facts presented, I would not convict. I think his actions were reasonable, and I think it was reasonable in that situation to fear death or serious bodily harm. If I were sitting on his jury, I would not vote to convict. If I were the only holdout, then we'd have a hung jury.