ranburr, I'm at a loss to understand the point of your post (#80), at least in the context of this discussion. So in this particular case, the modification of the gun was not a factor. So what? The real question is: why wasn't it a factor? Let's analyze things based on your post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranbuss
The one murder trial that I was involved in...
|
We'll assume that the actual charge was murder. Murder is intentional homicide with malice (Cliff's Notes version: manslaughter is intentional or reckless homicide without malice).
To secure a murder conviction (Cliff's Notes version, again), the prosecutor must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant performed the act; (2) the act was performed intentionally by the defendant; and (3) the defendant performed the act with the requisite state of mind, i.e., malice. To defend the charge the defendant needs to --
[1] Create a reasonable doubt in minds of the jurors that he did it ("I wasn't there" (alibi) or "Some other dude done it"); and/or
[2] Create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that the act was intentional ("It was an accident"); and/or
[3] Create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that he had the requisite state of mind, i. e., malice.
Defense [1], if it works, gets an acquittal. Defense [2], if it works, probably gets an acquittal, but may only get the conviction reduced to the lesser included charge of manslaughter if the jury can conclude that the conduct of the defendant, while not intentional, was grossly negligent, or willful, wanton or reckless, depending on the particular rule in the jurisdiction. And defense [3] gets a manslaughter conviction instead of murder.
(Another possible defense is justification (i. e., self defense or defense of another), but that doesn't appear to have been a factor in this case.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranburr
...The defendent claimed that he had accidentally shot the victim when he jerked the gun away from her. Expert witnesses claimed that it happened the way he said it did and the match trigger was an accident waiting to happen....
|
You don't say whose expert this witness was, but from the context, he appears to have been the defendant's witness. It also appears that the defendant was offering the testimony of the expert witness, and the evidence relating to the modification to the gun, to support his defense that the shooting was accidental (and thus not intentional).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranburr
...All of that [the testimony of the defendant's expert] was immediately shot down and had no meaning or merit with the jury. ...The gun itself was never an issue in the jury's decision....
|
And perhaps the reason for that was that the prosecution's case was in general so strong that the jury was not buying the "but it was an accident" claim of the defendant. So of course the gun didn't matter to the jury. The jury had concluded from other evidence offered by the prosecution that the shooting was not in any case an accident.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranburr
...The third trial ended in another conviction....
|
And so the jury concluded that the guy was guilty of intentionally killing his wife and was not moved in the slightest by the defendant's claim it was accident, notwithstanding the testimony of the defendant's expert.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
How do you deal with a shooting, or brandishing situation, when it was of absolute necessity, but, you are in a city and county that makes legal CCW impossible....
|
So what does this have to do with anything we've been discussing, and what do you mean by "deal with"? Personally, I have no reason to deal with this type of situation.
In any case, there are two issues: the use of force; and the weapons violation. If the use of force was justified, you might get off on that. But you could still get stung on the weapons violation.
The "poster child" for that outcome is Bernie Goetz, the 1984 Subway Vigilante. He defended himself with an unlicensed handgun in a New York subway from some armed robbers. He was tried for various assault related crimes and the weapons charge. He was acquitted of the violence and convicted on the weapons charge (and he was hammered in a subsequent civil suit).
Of course, there's such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. So if you're a big enough hero (e. g., you use your illegal gun to save a bus load of developmentally disabled children from a gang of child rapists), the DA might let you skate. But I wouldn't count on it.