View Single Post
Old December 18, 2008, 08:44 PM   #49
David Armstrong
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
You might realize that the FBI 10mm load is almost identical to the .40 they use now.
I realize that the FBI settled on a downloaded version when they found the full 10mm to much. The jury won't realize that, won't care about that, and it is immaterial as Fish was using the full power loads, IIRC.
Sorry, but I have been down this path before. Your argument does not hold water.
Really? Tell that to Mister Fish. That's what so many always miss. We're gunnies. We know better. The jury is not gunnies. In fact, they will probably try hard to get anyone who knows much about guns off the jury. The argument does hold water WITH THEM.
Certainly a prosecutor can try to make it but a COMPETENT Defense Attorney can easily tear it apart.
That's a heck of an assumption that, if I may borrrow a phrase, doesn't hold water. It is not easy to tear it apart, as both sides will bring forth experts in the field who will testify on the issue. I've just pointed out the easy stuff....the FBI dropped it, no major agency uses it, the FBI said it was excessive for their agents. A jury will just drool over that stuff, and we haven't even gotten to the real bad stuff. Can it be beaten? Sure, but don't assume it will be easy, and even if it is easy don't assume the jury won't latch onto it. I've seen way to many totally insignificant things be just the item that tipped the scale in jury trials. Personally, based on my knowledge of the case, I think that is what happened. Several factors were against Fish, it is not nearly as clear-cut as some would suggest, and so on. The "super gun with the deadly bullets" may have just been the icing on the cake for the jury to say "this guy was wrong."
The defense here though was INCOMPETENT on several fronts, caliber being only ONE.
Just out of curiosity, have you read the court transcript?

Last edited by David Armstrong; December 18, 2008 at 09:04 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Page generated in 0.03619 seconds with 7 queries