Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RDak
Had those errors not risen to the level of casting doubt on the "no reasonable doubt" verdict,...
|
If you are going to spout off about the law, you should at least learn to use terminology correctly. "Reversible error" means that the errors could have affected the result. "Reasonable doubt" refers to the standard of proof in a criminal case and the level of certainty to which the jury must find the existence of the facts supporting a guilty verdict.
The appellate court was not sending secret signals about its view of the merits of the case. Appellate courts don't do that. Real life is full of cases sent back for re-trial to exactly the same result as the first time around. The function of the appellate court is to preserve the integrity of the process and not to telegraph veiled signals about the way the case should turn out.
So your analysis of the appellate decision is way off the mark. You are reading far too much into it.
And on balance, I tend to think that a re-trial should yield a different result for Fish. The fundamental question remains whether a reasonable and prudent person confronted with a larger and younger man running full tilt down hill towards him while shouting death threats would conclude that lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate death of grave bodily injury to himself. We'll see how things turn out.
But to suggest that the court of appeals concluded that such should be the result is overreaching.