Just wanted to say "THANKS!" to everyone who responded to my questions on
reaction times, etc. I made this a public reply because I didn't save
the addresses of all who replied) but, in the interest of bandwidth, if
anyone cares to respond, please do so privately to
<richard.arnold@juno.com>.
The information I received was used to prepare both both the prosecution
and the defense theories in a Mock Trial competition, and thought you
might be interested in how it was used and the results:
As some may recall, when I posed my questions, I used an LBC owner who
shot, four times, a person believed to have key scratched the LBC. In
the Mock Trial competition, the facts were different. We receive a set
of witness statements, exhibits, statutes, and case law; these are always
contradictory -- in constructing our cases we can only use the
information presented and the inferences that we can reasonably make; ie,
we aren't allowed to invent facts. Just to make things interesting, the
witness statements are gender neutral. The scenario we received follows:
Lee, a widow/widower has two children, Kathleen and Edwin. L bought a
.22 caliber revolver (might be single or double action) three days prior
to shooting E four times. Autopsy by Medical Examiner shows that all
four shots were fired at a distance of about three feet, that E was
upright and motionless when shot, that E showed no signs of a struggle,
and that E had cocaine in his system at death. Forensic Investigator
also determines that shots were fired at a distance of about three feet
but states that E was approaching L when shot (determined from analysis
of blood spatter evidence). The evidence case file contains many other
items that relate to premeditation, malice, motive, and witness
credibility, etc, etc. The State has charged L with murder (taking of
one person's life by another with malice aforethought). L has claimed
that L was not the aggressor, that L held a reasonable belief the L was
in imminent danger, and that L reasonably that L had to use deadly force
to protect self.
PROSECUTION: Showed that L could not have fired four shots that all
struck at same distance while E was attacking. Broke out the tape
measure when cross-examining L to demonstrate that if shooting occurred
as claimed, E would have been in contact with at least three of the four
shots. Presented this case two times, each to a different two judge
panel:
First Presentation: Guilty-Murder 1st, Guilty-Murder 1st
Second Presentation: Guilty-Murder 1st, Guilty-Murder 2d
Analysis: Damn near impossible to refute time/speed facts, successful
presentation of case accomplished.
DEFENSE: Showed that Police investigaton was flawed and that Medical
Examiner did not have expert qualifications necessary to determine
distance at which, and how, shots were fired (two different experts + two
different opinions = reasonable doubt). Defendant's testimony used to
establish that reasonable fear existed at time of shooting. Results:
First Presentation: Guilty-Involuntary Manslaughter; Acquittal
Second Presentation: Acquittal, Guilty-Murder 2d
Analysis: Demand jury trial, damn near impossible to refute time/speed
facts, successful presentation of case accomplished, use totality of
circumstances to bring down to lesser included offense.
PERSONAL OPINION: L guilty as hell, as impossible to fire four shots
with all striking at the same distance while being attacked.
Thanks again for all the help!
Rich
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
|