TG and PT111:
The jury was not allowed to consider prior acts of violence in determining who was the initial agressor. Kuenzli was clearly a violent person and had the jury been allowed to consider this fact to determine Fish's state of mind, as to what was transpiring before his eyes, they could very well have found Kuenzli the first aggressor.
The appellate court stated the victim's prior agressive behavior was "highly sanitized" and provided the jury with none of the information indicating "how violent or agressive the victim had become over the confrontation with his dogs...... that he was irrationally agressive and violent and extremely frightening.....that the victim, when upset, would get a 'wild look' and 'flail his arms in an agressive manner'....The jury only heard from witnesses that they thought the victim had a reputation that he was violent or agressive........and (only heard) in several instances undescribed incidents had occurred with the victim's dogs".
The appellate court went on to state, in so many words, that denying specific and detailed prior violent behavior of Kuenzli, denied Fish the chance to present "crucial" corroborating evidence that he was confronted by a "wild eyed man, flailing his arms and fists and threatening to hurt Fish". This was "crucial to the justification defense" according to the appellate court.
Then, the appellate court stated, the lower court erred when not explaining that appropriate self-defense actions include perceived threats of actual physical attack, as well as, attempted use of unlawful physical force.
In other words, the appellate court concluded it is ok to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. (The jury was not told it is ok to use deadly force if a violent felonious act is about to be committed, [i.e., it's only ok when it is ACTUALLY being committed, or something to that effect].)
The appellate court went on to state Fish's testimony to the police, witnesses and the grand jury were reasonably consistent and footprints showed Kuenzli was moving towards Fish and Fish shot Kuenzli when he was very close.
All that evidence, taken as a whole, along with the serious evidence withheld from the jury, coupled with totally deficient jury instructions, resulted in the appellate court concluding the jury should have been instructed to accept the prevention of violent attack as a justifiable defense.
The appellate court stated an individual can make an aggravated assault without ever physically contacting his or her intended victim. The jury was never told Fish could use deadly force to prevent the aggravated assault before he was physically hurt or had endured actual physical contact.
Finally, the lower court even erred when it failed to instruct the jury that attacking dogs can be considered dangerous weapons. (I'm beginning to think the lower court judge is a loon.)
The appellate court stated a dog can be considered a dangerous instrument (well duh!!) and, the owner doesn't have to order his dog to attack to avoid responsibility or suspicion. (Well, once again, duh!!)
Due to these extremely serious mistakes made by the lower court judge, the appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence.
TG and PT111: Now, just for entertainment purposes, with what the appellate court basically concluded from the above paragraphs, do you guys still think there is no reasonable doubt that Fish is a murderer?
I mean, "come on now"!?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16994567/Harold-Fish
The jury was not allowed to consider prior acts of violence in determining who was the initial agressor. Kuenzli was clearly a violent person and had the jury been allowed to consider this fact to determine Fish's state of mind, as to what was transpiring before his eyes, they could very well have found Kuenzli the first aggressor.
The appellate court stated the victim's prior agressive behavior was "highly sanitized" and provided the jury with none of the information indicating "how violent or agressive the victim had become over the confrontation with his dogs...... that he was irrationally agressive and violent and extremely frightening.....that the victim, when upset, would get a 'wild look' and 'flail his arms in an agressive manner'....The jury only heard from witnesses that they thought the victim had a reputation that he was violent or agressive........and (only heard) in several instances undescribed incidents had occurred with the victim's dogs".
The appellate court went on to state, in so many words, that denying specific and detailed prior violent behavior of Kuenzli, denied Fish the chance to present "crucial" corroborating evidence that he was confronted by a "wild eyed man, flailing his arms and fists and threatening to hurt Fish". This was "crucial to the justification defense" according to the appellate court.
Then, the appellate court stated, the lower court erred when not explaining that appropriate self-defense actions include perceived threats of actual physical attack, as well as, attempted use of unlawful physical force.
In other words, the appellate court concluded it is ok to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. (The jury was not told it is ok to use deadly force if a violent felonious act is about to be committed, [i.e., it's only ok when it is ACTUALLY being committed, or something to that effect].)
The appellate court went on to state Fish's testimony to the police, witnesses and the grand jury were reasonably consistent and footprints showed Kuenzli was moving towards Fish and Fish shot Kuenzli when he was very close.
All that evidence, taken as a whole, along with the serious evidence withheld from the jury, coupled with totally deficient jury instructions, resulted in the appellate court concluding the jury should have been instructed to accept the prevention of violent attack as a justifiable defense.
The appellate court stated an individual can make an aggravated assault without ever physically contacting his or her intended victim. The jury was never told Fish could use deadly force to prevent the aggravated assault before he was physically hurt or had endured actual physical contact.
Finally, the lower court even erred when it failed to instruct the jury that attacking dogs can be considered dangerous weapons. (I'm beginning to think the lower court judge is a loon.)
The appellate court stated a dog can be considered a dangerous instrument (well duh!!) and, the owner doesn't have to order his dog to attack to avoid responsibility or suspicion. (Well, once again, duh!!)
Due to these extremely serious mistakes made by the lower court judge, the appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence.
TG and PT111: Now, just for entertainment purposes, with what the appellate court basically concluded from the above paragraphs, do you guys still think there is no reasonable doubt that Fish is a murderer?
I mean, "come on now"!?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16994567/Harold-Fish
Last edited: