Getting Ready to testify

[GrantDawg]

Ok, I'll be going to testify for the first time ever, and of course it will be in a murder trial. My stomach is tied in knots. Hopefully everything is going ok. I am testifying for the defense, and everything I have heard things are going well. The more I hear how weak the case is, the more I am shocked this has even gone to trial.

Keep me in your thoughts and prayers. I may testify today or tomorrow.

[WSUCougar]

Wow, that's intense. We'll be thinking of you.

Are you testifying as a character witness, or can you say?

[Rich1033]

Interesting. Let us know how it goes and good luck to you on the stand.

[Ksyrup]

Is this that accidental shooting case I recall someone posting about months and months ago? I'm not even sure if it was you or not. In any event, good luck. I've never been on that side of the table before. Just try to relax and answer only the questions asked.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Is this that accidental shooting case I recall someone posting about months and months ago? I'm not even sure if it was you or not. In any event, good luck. I've never been on that side of the table before. Just try to relax and answer only the questions asked.

Yes. And yes, I am basically a character witness, though my testimony goes against the heart of the prosecutions case. I'll keep everybody informed. Hopefully I can testify today, and witness the rest of the trial. They believe it will be over by the end of the week.

[RPI-Fan]

If the evidence is as weak as you say it is, they will, in all likelihood, be acquited.

I saw a show on MSNBC once (Abrams Report) where they had a lawyer on discussing a trial. Basically, to a casual observer, the evidence seemed overwhelming (DNA, weapons - the works). But the lawyer that the evidence was 'borderline' on getting a conviction.

He basically said that you need much more evidence to convict somebody than you'd think. So, good luck in your testifying. I hope all goes well.

~rpi-fan

[GrantDawg]

Well, I get to go back tommorow. Everything went pretty decent today. It is very hard to tell which way the court will go so far. They are hoping the case will go to the jury tommorow.

Here's something I always wanted to try when on the witness stand.

First you mention something about the victim being in danger. Then when the lawyer asks "grave danger?" you reply, "Is there another kind?" and look kind of smug.

Later, when Tom Cruise tells you that he's entitled to the truth, you tell him "I don't give a damn that you can't handle what you think you're entitled to!" or something like that.

Then everyone will relax and laugh, and probably shake your hand afterwards.

I'm going on trial next month, I can't wait to try it out.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by gespacho
I'm going on trial next month, I can't wait to try it out.

If you are going on trial, I hope there are extenuating circumstances for why your attorney would put you on the stand. Especially if he reads this thread!

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
If you are going on trial, I hope there are extenuating circumstances for why your attorney would put you on the stand. Especially if he reads this thread!

They put the defendant on the stand in this case. I promise you, it was a big help.

I testified yesterday. It went well. The DA tried his best to rattle me, but it didn't work. They were able to finish yesterday, and the jury deliberated for a short time before going home. I am on my way back this morning. I'm sure we will know something by this afternoon.

[GrantDawg]

Ok, so the jury came back with the verdict. He was found guilty of felony murder. The felony was misuse of hunting equipment. It is the most convoluted murder conviction I ever heard of. Basically it comes down to "accidental" murder because there was no intent to harm or malice. He has been sentenced to life with parole possible in 14 years.

So, any lawyers want to take on a pro-bono appeal?

[digamma]

That's a really interesting verdict.
But it's legally sound. Felony murder is a killing that occurs as a result of the commission of another felony. If the evidence was there to support the conviction under misuse of hunting equipment, then because the person died, it is there for felony murder.

It's interesting that the D.A. would include felony murder as a charge. He must have really wanted to put this guy in prison, which seems strange and unfortunate to me.

[BishopMVP]

I saw something on Dateline or something like that last night from California where there was a brawl involving 4 kids in an argument with 2 others. One of the four sees his little brother being beaten badly, whips out a knife and kills one of the guys. He received life in prison, no parole; but because of the Felony Murder rule, 2 of the other 4 received life w/possibilty of parole while the 4th guy who stood in the doorway received 25-to-Life and a 5th person out in the car pled guilty and received 10 years. That the biggest travesty of justice I have ever heard. The felony murder rule is a frickin joke.

Good luck with the case. Hope you win on appeal.

[Ksyrup]

I've got the best example of the felony murder rule in action. In law school, one of my classmates was carjacked at gun point and forced to drive to his house to get his credit cards and other valuables. His wife had just given birth less than two months earlier, so he knew there was no way he was taking them home. As he got on the on-ramp of the highway, he saw a parked semi on the side of the road. Since he was wearing his seatbelt, he decide to floor it and hit the semi. Neither of the scumbags was wearing a seatbelt - the guy in the front seat was killed instantly and the guy in back was seriously injured, but survived. My friend ended up with some injuries, but was back in school within a week.

The guy in the back seat was charged and convicted of felony murder because his buddy was killed during the commission of a felony.

[GrantDawg]

It only took 8 years for this to get over-turned.

Georgia top court throws out murder conviction *| ajc.com

[JediKooter]

WOW! So are they going to try and retry him? Sounded like the prosecutor was trying to pad his stats for a future run at some sort of elected position.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Basically it comes down to "accidental" murder because there was no intent to harm or malice. He has been sentenced to life with parole possible in 14 years.

So, any lawyers want to take on a pro-bono appeal?

I sounds like this should have been regarded as manslaughter rather than murder.

[JediKooter]

Or chalk it up as a tragic accident.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I sounds like this should have been regarded as manslaughter rather than murder.

Yup. Of course he has ended up doing more time than he would have with a manslaughter conviction.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

WOW! So are they going to try and retry him? Sounded like the prosecutor was trying to pad his stats for a future run at some sort of elected position.

I'm not sure of the exact wording of the appeal yet, but I believe the court actually set-aside the conviction, so he wouldn't be able to be retried under double-jeopardy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I've got the best example of the felony murder rule in action. In law school, one of my classmates was carjacked at gun point and forced to drive to his house to get his credit cards and other valuables. His wife had just given birth less than two months earlier, so he knew there was no way he was taking them home. As he got on the on-ramp of the highway, he saw a parked semi on the side of the road. Since he was wearing his seatbelt, he decide to floor it and hit the semi. Neither of the scumbags was wearing a seatbelt - the guy in the front seat was killed instantly and the guy in back was seriously injured, but survived. My friend ended up with some injuries, but was back in school within a week.

The guy in the back seat was charged and convicted of felony murder because his buddy was killed during the commission of a felony.

That is a crazy story. I hope that that guy left law and and became a spy or assassin or something. He's got some balls.

Here's that Georgia Supreme Court opinion, I haven't read it yet, but it should be interesting:

http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s10a0363.pdf

8 years is too long for these to go through the system. It doesn't need to take that long.

[GrantDawg]

Much more complete article. It was a ruling to completely overturn the decision.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/cr...n?v=1278935342

[johnnyshaka]

Shit, he shot and killed his brother by accident AND had to spend 8 years in prison?? That is f'ing shitty.

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Much more complete article. It was a ruling to completely overturn the decision.

ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved

It looks like all of his direct appeals failed, but then he was granted habeas corpus relief.

When a conviction is thrown out, the state can generally retry the case (Double jeopardy wouldn't apply because he's not being convicted twice, or punished twice, because the first conviction is a nullity). I'm not sure if the stranger procedure of this case creates any kind of exception to that. I actually haven't seen habeas relief ever granted. I'd hope that the current prosecutor is a little more sensible about a murder charge though, and he's already served enough time for manslaughter/misc. weapons charges. I'd hope they would just let it go.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not sure of the exact wording of the appeal yet, but I believe the court actually set-aside the conviction, so he wouldn't be able to be retried under double-jeopardy.

I hope so. I know nothing of this case or the people involved, but, it really sounded like the prosecutor made a mountain out of mole hill on this.

You bring people to trial to set an example to the rest of the public in hopes of deterring future similar malicious conduct. Prosecuting this guy does nothing to that affect, it was an accident.

[albionmoonlight]

Jeopardy attaches when you have a conviction thrown out for insufficient evidence. He cannot be tried again for this incident.

As for the 7 years of his life he can never get back . . .

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jeopardy attaches when you have a conviction thrown out for insufficient evidence. He cannot be tried again for this incident.

As for the 7 years of his life he can never get back . . .

I haven't read the whole thing, but it looks like he lost the insufficient evidence claim on the direct appeal, but then won a ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on the habeas corpus petition.

I hope it doesn't matter either way. Such a ridiculous use of felony murder statutes.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by molson

It looks like all of his direct appeals failed, but then he was granted habeas corpus relief.

When a conviction is thrown out, the state can generally retry the case (Double jeopardy wouldn't apply because he's not being convicted twice, or punished twice, because the first conviction is a nullity). I'm not sure if the stranger procedure of this case creates any kind of exception to that. I actually haven't seen habeas relief ever granted. I'd hope that the current prosecutor is a little more sensible about a murder charge though, and he's already served enough time for manslaughter/misc. weapons charges. I'd hope they would just let it go.

Actually, the appeal does clearly state that he can't be retried under double-jeopardy. They are ruling the state failed to prove that "the circumstances known to Petitioner at the time would not have led a reasonable person to believe that there was a risk from which bodily injury would probably result." He did not know his brother was in that area, because he was supposed to be in another part of the property at the time. So, they are ruling the state never made its case and his attorney did not do his job in recognizing it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Actually, the appeal does clearly state that he can't be retried under double-jeopardy. They are ruling the state failed to prove that "the circumstances known to Petitioner at the time would not have led a reasonable person to believe that there was a risk from which bodily injury would probably result." He did not know his brother was in that area, because he was supposed to be in another part of the property at the time. So, they are ruling the state never made its case and his attorney did not do his job in recognizing it.

Cool. I don't know anything about habeas corpus. I'm glad he didn't give up and filed that petition pro se.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jeopardy attaches when you have a conviction thrown out for insufficient evidence. He cannot be tried again for this incident.

As for the 7 years of his life he can never get back . . .

Not just the 7 years he lost. His mom had just recovered from breast cancer months before this happened. Shortly after the conviction, her cancer returned. She died a few months later. His dad lost a son, a wife, and saw his other son sent to prison within a years time. He held himself together better than anyone I could think of under the circumstances.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

That is a crazy story. I hope that that guy left law and and became a spy or assassin or something. He's got some balls.

Heh. I believe he did actually leave law, but nothing along those lines. Last I heard he was doing something insurance-related in the Orlando area.

It was quite the story around campus and Tallahassee in general when it happened. Not quite as crazy as the woman in our class who got caught cheating on an exam and tried to take a hit out on the assistant who was going to testify against her in the school's administrative proceeding (and took a hit out on her husband as well while she was at it), but that one even made Hard Copy, as I recall. Tough to compete against that!

[spleen1015]

Is this guys pretty much SOL or does the state do anything to help him since they screwed him?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Is this guys pretty much SOL or does the state do anything to help him since they screwed him?

If the court stated his lawyer dropped the ball, too, doesn't that pretty much be an open and shtu case of malpractice? Or does malpractice requrie malicious intent?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If the court stated his lawyer dropped the ball, too, doesn't that pretty much be an open and shtu case of malpractice? Or does malpractice requrie malicious intent?

EDIT: Just re-read what you said. Thought you were talking about the prosecutor.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If the court stated his lawyer dropped the ball, too, doesn't that pretty much be an open and shtu case of malpractice? Or does malpractice requrie malicious intent?

Not sure. The only one maliciuos in this whole case was the ADA. I'll never forget how viciuos that guy was. He actually tried to get him on Murder 2. He claimed that Josh shot him because a) He liked the movie The Shining and had posters of it and hard-rock bands on his wall, and/or b) Sam had just recently returned to church and Josh wanted to kill him before he returned to sin. Yeah, he was a prick.