Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
..I honestly am curious with my question + consider it valid...
|
And I think it's leading us off topic. Let's focus on the discussion of the standards that apply to determining whether a defensive threat or use of lethal force is legally justified and that the assessment of whether or not it was justified must go beyond the mere fact that it was a good result that we all can applaud.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MLeake
...I would have sworn that in one class I attended, where Harold Fish was a topic of discussion, the point was made that one of Fish's bases for appeal was that the man he shot had a past pattern of behavior that exactly matched what Fish described as having been displayed toward him....
|
Ah, but the reason excluding that sort of evidence from the defense was reversible error in
Fish was because of the manner in which Fish's credibility was challenged by the prosecution "opened the door" to that evidence. Also, the ruling of the appellate court was very narrow. The appellate court did not rule that the information was admissible. The appellate ruling merely clarified and defined the standards to be applied by the trial court in deciding whether to admit the testimony.