Frank Ettin
Administrator
That is one potential way it can matter.pilpens said:Please tell me if I am wrong to help me understand better:
1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?...
In addition, consider that you are on trial for aggravated assault -- you shot someone causing him serious injury. Your defense is that you reasonably believed that the person you shot was an imminent lethal threat, and, therefore, your act of violence was justified as self defense.
To support your claim that you reasonably believed your life to be in imminent danger you testify about what happened. You explain on the witness stand what happened -- what you saw and why you believed you were at risk of immediate, lethal injury. One way in which the prosecutor will try to overcome your claim of justified self defense will be to attempt to discredit your testimony and challenge the reasonableness of you perception that you were in imminent jeopardy. Is there any evidence which might help the prosecutor to do that -- any evidence which might cause a juror to perhaps doubt the reasonableness of your claimed perceptions?
One possibility is a very light trigger. Look at post 52. Might it not affect how the jury evaluates your evidence and tries to decide if you really did reasonably believe that you were in imminent jeopardy if a prosecution expert has testified that it would be reckless to carry a gun with such a light trigger for self defense? Or you put fancy grips with the Punisher skull on your gun and jurors wonder why you identify with a comic book vigilante.
Juror impressions can be a wild card and are important. That's why any lawyer wants his client to appear in court neatly dressed and well groomed. We know from post verdict juror interviews that in the Harold Fish case (discussed in some of the threads I linked to in post 16) that at least one juror who voted to convict him was bothered by his use of JHP ammunition.
It is important to understand the nature of a claim of self defense. Because you will have admitted the elements of the crime you're on trial for, it's extremely important that you favorably impress the jury as honest, forthright, reasonable and responsible.
Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.
As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.
In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....