• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Helena man's homicide trial results in hung jury

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,591
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Can anyone spot the absurdity? This is why prosecutors need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.
Not enough information to spot the absurdity. As to the second sentence, I believe prosecutors do need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Can anyone spot the absurdity? This is why prosecutors need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.

I see two.

First, how the devil can I escalate a situation by entering my own home? And, how the devil can I brandish a gun in my own home? The prosecutor argument smacks of rampant socialism. I am escalating a situation by entering my own home?

Second, the judge instructed the jury that they are the triers of the facts. Bald-faced lie by omission. The jury has the complete, unabridged right and power to decide the law as well as the facts. A jury must have that power--see Lysander Spooner's essay Trial by Jury.

I agree that prosecutors must be held criminally and civilly liable (notice I stopped before malicious). The old excuse that they can't do their jobs if they have to worry about sanctions is such a tub of barnyard waste.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,591
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I see two.

First, how the devil can I escalate a situation by entering my own home? And, how the devil can I brandish a gun in my own home? The prosecutor argument smacks of rampant socialism. I am escalating a situation by entering my own home?

Second, the judge instructed the jury that they are the triers of the facts. Bald-faced lie by omission. The jury has the complete, unabridged right and power to decide the law as well as the facts. A jury must have that power--see Lysander Spooner's essay Trial by Jury.

I agree that prosecutors must be held criminally and civilly liable (notice I stopped before malicious). The old excuse that they can't do their jobs if they have to worry about sanctions is such a tub of barnyard waste.
The facts are that the homeowner shot the BG in the back while the BG was exiting the home through a window. Then the homeowner went outside and shot the guy running away. Those are the facts; all the facts about waving the gun and entering his home have no relevancy. The hung jury, I think, was because of jury nullification. I can see a juror saying that yes the law says you can't shoot someone in the back (running away), but he was a bad guy, not guilty.

As to your second statement, I agree, but as I said above someone on that jury new the law, in effect not on my watch. Will someone on the second jury have the same understanding of their duties?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The facts are that the homeowner shot the BG in the back while the BG was exiting the home through a window. Then the homeowner went outside and shot the guy running away. Those are the facts; all the facts about waving the gun and entering his home have no relevancy. The hung jury, I think, was because of jury nullification. I can see a juror saying that yes the law says you can't shoot someone in the back (running away), but he was a bad guy, not guilty.

As to your second statement, I agree, but as I said above someone on that jury new the law, in effect not on my watch. Will someone on the second jury have the same understanding of their duties?

Thanks for the additional info. Much appreciated.
 

Jered

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
162
Location
Whatcom County
I decided to check out this forum because I'm probably going to be moving to Montana in the near future.

It sounds like you guys should steal a couple of our laws from Washington

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime—Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I decided to check out this forum because I'm probably going to be moving to Montana in the near future.

It sounds like you guys should steal a couple of our laws from Washington

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime—Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

Or remove such laws entirely .... you have the right to defend yourself and property. No laws needed for that right -- it exists w/o any laws written.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The facts are that the homeowner shot the BG in the back while the BG was exiting the home through a window. Then the homeowner went outside and shot the guy running away. Those are the facts; all the facts about waving the gun and entering his home have no relevancy. The hung jury, I think, was because of jury nullification. I can see a juror saying that yes the law says you can't shoot someone in the back (running away), but he was a bad guy, not guilty.

As to your second statement, I agree, but as I said above someone on that jury new the law, in effect not on my watch. Will someone on the second jury have the same understanding of their duties?

+1

It would be interesting to know the jury vote. Was it guilty or not-guilty that was the minority position?

Whether it was one juror, or all but one who refused to convict, probably safe to say that none of the seated jurors showed up to court wearing an NRA hat/belt-buckle or "...from my cold dead hands..." T-shirt. I bet none of them volunteered an eagerness to nullify.

The jury box is the last peaceful means of resisting tyranny. An honorable man must answer questions honestly, even if the voir dire process is flawed at this time.

But an honorable man recognizes his duty not to make it easy to exclude him from jury service. He doesn't avoid jury duty. He recognizes that his may be the only voice of reason in the deliberation room to prevent a gross injustice.

One man can prevent a conviction, at least on his watch.

One man might even be able to persuade the other members of a jury to flat out acquit when warranted.

And on the flip side, one man might persuade his fellows that a conviction really is warranted when the state manages to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and poses a risk to the community.

Charles
 
Top