Do juries really convict people like this?

"No proceeding, no hearsay."

Nonsense. You're saying the word "hearsay" can ONLY have a legal meaning when, in fact, "hearsay" is defined generally as "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge."

I don't know the point you are trying to make with that. Ausse said that the kid told the dad, which is not true. The dad obtained his information through someone who was told by someone else -- through HEARSAY.

"For what it's worth, the wife's statement will make it into the record. The lawyer will argue that the statement was the trigger for his rage (if going for a voluntary manslaughter charge) or insanity (if pursuing that defense). As such, the statement will be offered into evidence for the fact that it was made, and not for the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, it won't be hearsay at that time, nor was it at the time the wife made it, since it wasn't being offered in a proceeding."

What happens when it comes time to question the dad? They will ask him why he thought his child had been molested. He will say "MY WIFE TOLD ME." At that point, his testimony is hearsay any way you cut it. They can ask the wife, and she will say "MY DAUGHTER TOLD ME" and it STILL will be hearsay as the wife did not witness the event.
 
While wouldn't the surest way of success be to appeal the the emotional side of the jury, really yanking at the whole 'wouldn't you do it too' factor?
Click to expand...

I saw a lawyer jerk the emotional strings once. He didn't watch the jurors' faces close enough, apparently, or he would have seen the disgust building. That dealt with money in a death case, but the concept is the same. You can get jurors to sympathize with you, but you run into the risk of their understanding that yes, they would do the same, but they would have been equally as wrong. The better tactic would be to


On another note, could the jury find him guilty but release him on time served?
Not that it holds ANY weight but I think I saw that happen on the practice once...Doesn't the jury also get to decide the punishment if guilty?
Click to expand...

Only in capital cases in some states. Most of the time, the judges passes sentence.

And what if it comes out that the neighbor WAS a predator? Who DID mess with that guy's little girl. Could that be presented as evidence in his defense? Do D.A.s 'plead out' people like this sometimes?
Click to expand...

If he actually knew it at the time (knowledge learned later is inadmissible to show state of mind or knowledge at the time of the incident), that could be a factor that goes to the increased outrage or insanity he felt. It was more likely that his daughter was attacked because this person had done it before, and thus his going nuts was understandable. It would help with the issue of his state of mind, but wouldn't get him off. His daughter's condition, however, won't be of benefit at trial. He couldn't have known it so it doesn't matter.

As you suggest, it could matter in terms of a plea bargain if the girl was attacked and the father knew it to be true. As it stands, the DA is looking at a guy who acted without anything but his rage and/or insanity. If the psyche report shows the guy went off the deep end during that period, and meets the legal test for insanity, the DA could work something out. Similarly, the DA can offer to plead the guy out to the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.
 
Nonsense. You're saying the word "hearsay" can ONLY have a legal meaning when, in fact, "hearsay" is defined generally as "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge."
Click to expand...

Since you were questioning whether he'd ever set foot in a law school, let alone a college, I thought you were going for the legal defintion. Perhaps if you'd said "Are you claiming to be an english professor?" I would have gone the other way.

What happens when it comes time to question the dad? They will ask him why he thought his child had been molested. He will say "MY WIFE TOLD ME." At that point, his testimony is hearsay any way you cut it. They can ask the wife, and she will say "MY DAUGHTER TOLD ME" and it STILL will be hearsay as the wife did not witness the event.
Click to expand...

No, it won't be. Hearsay is only hearsay (under either definition) if it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or if it is being. Neither the fact that his wife made the statement to him nor the words stated therein constitute hearsay under any definition of the word. By definition, the fact that he has direct knowledge of the statement's content and existence precludes it from being hearsay. But don't trust me: go pick up an evidence textbook. Scenarios nearly identical to this one are used to demonstate the difference between hearsay and non-hearsay.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that there is physical evidence of the attack that the wife saw, and likely relayed to the husband.

That said, I had a friend in Hawaii with a 2-3 year old daughter. I called, she answered the phone, and told my friend the call was for her, and that we where going out on a date!!! SHE WAS 2-3, AND MADE THIS UP OUT OF THE BLUE. I had NEVER even been to their house!!!

I believe the mother must have had physical evidence, and relayed that to the husband.

I suspect he may get the charges knocked down to involuntary manslaughter, if the time between hearing of the molestation, and acting on it are close enough.

S
 
The point of my statement isn't to ignore what kids say, but not to put inordinate faith and trust in the statement, the child, or our ability to intrepret/understand either one. Like anything else, such statements need follow up and investigation.
Click to expand...

Buzz Knox, you put too little faith in parent's intuition. It's not infalible, but it counts for a whole hell of a lot. And like socrates said, I'd too would be willing to believe that there was a little more than simple hearsay that led him to put the neighbor down.
 
It doesn't matter if it was hearsay or not. The father acted outside of the law in dealing justice AFTER the the fact of the alledged event, using lethal force at a time when there was no threat.

So it gets down-graded as a crime of passion and he gets manslaughter instead of murder...because what the wife told him upset him. The bottom line is that he broke the law. What he did was illegal regardless of whether his daughter was molested or not.
 
I thought a "crime of passion" murder was Murder2, not manslaughter. (I realize that this is not a legal term-murder 2- but I hope you know what I mean by that.)
 
This reminds me of the movie "A Time to Kill" based on the book by John Gresham. Anyone remember that movie? Samuel L. Jackson guns down those two pieces of white trash that rape his little 5 year old girl.

I don't have any children. (yet) I'm not even married. (yet) But I can say with a large degree of certainty that if some pervert next door had done anything to me 20 years ago and my dad right then and there was certain what had happened, nothing short of a bullet in the head would have stopped my dad from going next door and sending that guy to meet Almighty God.

Ya know what, if I were on a jury and the evidence was clear that the father knew that the perpetrator had done it beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would let him go.
 
Jcoil:
Murder statutes are by state, and some don't follow the common law general outlines.

The argument would be, if the information and act are close enough together, the anguish, and emotion negate the mens rhea for first degree, or common law murder:

" The DELIBERATE KILLING OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING."

So, you end up with the killing of another human being, but without the legal intent to do so, caused by temporary insanity/ caused by passion. Its Voluntary Manslaughter, by definition.

Being an attorney, they'll probably crucify him, and, he'll get some horrible sentence.

s

PS: The REALLY sad part of this is by FAR the better avenue would have been to have the pervert arrested, convicted, and sent to prison. Child molesters either spend their entire life in solitary, or, they get a slow, painful death, soon after they are put in prison, thanks to the total hate prison inmates have for child molesters. I'm thinking of John Malkovich in
Conair, talking to a rapist, and saying that he has about the same respect for him as the
scum that resides between his toes. Their is NOTHING on this planet that is so despised as a child molester in prison. That would have been a much better ending to this story.
 
On a different note, since there was no gun involved, I guess its time to ban knives? Of course you'll never hear that from anyone. Based on the facts of that article, he's done. If someone kicks in my door based on some hearsay about something I did not do, then its self defense, and I will respond accordingly, aka 40 S&W.:D
 
No, I'm not a lawyer; yes I am o.k. with jury nullification in some cases...happens every day, I might as well be o.k. with it. :) Have attended several murder trials; how about everybody else posting here? How many murder trials have you attended?
 
All:

I can't believe what I'm reading on some of these posts. HAVE SOME OF YOU LOST YOUR MINDS?

"don't know how I feel about this..."

We live in a civilized country, in which YOU ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This a-hole appointed himself, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The little girl may or may not have been a victim, but I promise you the poor bastard nieghbor was.

You know they have places for people who like it like that, it's called Afganistan. I would be happy to pay airfare for all those Sharia-law-lovers here who would like to go, you'll fit right in.

Once the nuclear bomb allegation of child molestation is made, it seems to blow all the sense out of the heads of some.

Get a grip,

Kowboy
 
Kowboy, you're totally right...Until it happens to your child. Then, i'm sure you'll be completely willing to think rationally...Call the police...submit your child for a rape test...wait 3 months to 3 years while the bastard goes to trial...sit idly by when he might get out on bail...And finally watch him get less of a sentence than someone who got cought with 2 oz of pot. Awesome. Justice is served, everyone go home.

Nope. Sorry. Not this guy.
 
Sorry, didn't do murder. Only attempted murder, robbery, rape, and anything below. I was privy to the detectives investigation on the dog murder case in San Francisco, I filed, and argued motions to keep the guy that shot the police, and killed the police dog, in Golden Gate park, about 1995, in confinement, when the doctors wanted to let him out. That was against Dan White's defense lawyer. Had an attempted murder case on the Hell's Angel's, but, they took care of it for us, when we couldn't get the victim to testify.;)

S
 
Yeah, but it will probably get pleaded down to some sort of low-grade manslaughter charge if the prosecutors know what is good for them. Temporary insanity cases have a long history of weird verdicts, and I would think that they would rather not take this one to trial.
 
you're totally right...Until it happens to your child.
Click to expand...
Possibly you're right Busterbury, I don't think so but for the sake of argument lets assume you are

Now lets assume that the third hand info you got, which originated from a two year old child, is incorrect and you have now murdered a drunk that may have just been peeing in his front yard at an inopportune moment.

I have had a family member's child cry molestation against a teacher.
Sister wanted me and her husband to kill the guy.
We didn't
Turned out to be a verifiable false alarm.
Maybe the child was just mistaken, we figured, until the second and third time.
The third time was against a man who was physically incapable of doing the things she said he did.

My own 2 year old told me that his grandmother kicked him when I asked about the little bruises on his face.
Turns out that he had not quite learned to pronounce the word kiss yet.
 
I've been on the other side of this. I've been accused of being a molester, by a fourteen-year-old who wanted attention and shouold have known better.

I want to hear the whole story, before I make up my mind.

That said, if I was the killer, my main defense would go something like, "I went to confront him about it. He admitted it to me, and flew into a blind rage. He had a knife. We struggled..."
 
Not knowing the facts, it sounds like voluntary manslaughter, or some kind of "heat of passion" crime. The short answer is, YES, they convict people for stuff like this. And, they send them to jail for a LONG time.

Good rule of thumb to live by: Don't kill people. If you HAVE to kill someone, join the Army, the Navy, the Marines, or the Post Office. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top