Harold Fish Not to be Retried

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
From AZCentral.com:

County Attorney David Rozema ... said that decision and a new law on self-defense that retroactively applies to Fish's case played into his decision not to retry Fish. The new law shifts the burden of proof in self-defense claim cases from the defendant to the prosecutor.

"In a case like this one, where there is limited physical evidence and no eyewitnesses other than the defendant himself, a second prosecution under the new law is not appropriate," Rozema said Thursday in a statement.

Rozema said he would work with the defense to have Fish released from a state prison where he has been held since August 2006. An attorney for Fish, Lee Phillips, did not immediately return a message left Friday by The Associated Press.
Click to expand...
So, with a combination of the Appeals Court ruling and the new Self-Defense law, the prosecution doesn't feel they can get a conviction.

Harold Fish may get out of prison, but he can now be civilly sued (assuming any Statute of Limitations has not run out). Um, O.J. redux.
 
"In a case like this one, where there is limited physical evidence and no eyewitnesses other than the defendant himself, a second prosecution under the new law is not appropriate," Rozema said Thursday in a statement.
Click to expand...

Translation: "We have no case, we had no case before, we just wanted to put the guy in jail and stifle exculpatory evidence about the looney he shot in self defense because it makes my conviction numbers look good when I run for my next office."

Between NAU @ Flagstaff and Sedona vortex-charm wearing neohippies, north-central AZ is a lost cause.
 
Harold Fish may get out of prison, but he can now be civilly sued (assuming any Statute of Limitations has not run out).
Click to expand...

I think that Mr. Fish would stand a better chance in ac civil trial than a criminal as much more evidence such as the dead man's character can be entered into evidence more easily. Second I doubt that Mr. Fish has anything left to sue for after the expenses of his appeal. I am not surprised that he is not being retried so I think they should all just get Mr. Fish out of jail and let the sleeping dog lie.
 
Well, whether you believe Fish is innocent or not, or what he did was right, wrong or indifferent, he is surely the quintessential example of why we should not shoot someone unless there is absolutely, positively no other choice.
 
Well, whether you believe Fish is innocent or not, or what he did was right, wrong or indifferent, he is surely the quintessential example of why we should not shoot someone unless there is absolutely, positively no other choice.
Click to expand...

Word Pizzadue, word Homey G

WildhomeyGhomespacehomestylehomerunAlaska ™
 
After reading the Appellate Court decision, it became obvious to me there would be no retrial.

I'm happy for Fish!
 
So no record, fully restored civil rights, back to square one, criminally speaking?
Click to expand...

Depends fully on the judge and DA. The case could remain open as long as the statute of limitations applies and he could have a pending case against him. The appelllate court has ordered a new trial which just means that he is right back to where he was before the first trial. The terms of the decision to not order a new trial can be anything from a plea bargain to outright dropping of the charges. If the charges are dropped completely he could technically sue for false arrest but I am sure the DA is going to cover that.
 
If the shooting is retroactively ruled justified, then no, Mr Fish cannot be sued civilly in AZ.
Click to expand...

But in order to get that ruling, Mr Fish needs his day in court. If they elect not to charge him, he is still vulnerable to a civil lawsuit.

The earlier trial had an amazing number of things wrong with it. I urge those who wonder about this case to read the court documents, which are eye-opening.

pax
 
"In a case like this one, where there is limited physical evidence and no eyewitnesses other than the defendant himself, a second prosecution under the new law is not appropriate," Rozema said Thursday in a statement.
Click to expand...

Translation: "We have no case, we had no case before, we just wanted to put the guy in jail and stifle exculpatory evidence about the looney he shot in self defense because it makes my conviction numbers look good when I run for my next office."
Click to expand...

Of course they had a case before. How else do you think Fish got convicted under the old law?
 
As Peetza said earlier this is a good example of how bad it can get after you shoot someone.

I really hope those from the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" believers take a lesson from Fish's experience.

While it is still not clear to me that Fish would have been killed or seriously injured had he not drawn his gun initially, it is a fact that he is broke, spent about three years in prison and might be sued for wrongful death by Kuenzli's family.

Lots to think about if you think you should draw and shoot to avoid a dog bite or a black eye. I sure don't envy Mr. Fish and I don't know this but I wonder if he wishes very much he had acted differently.
 
Without having been present (and in a reflective state affording time to study the details,) it is difficult to establish what anyone was thinking at the time of the confrontation.

I am of the opinion, however, that 'alive and broke' beats 'dead'...
 
Without having been present (and in a reflective state affording time to study the details,) it is difficult to establish what anyone was thinking at the time of the confrontation.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I'd be willing to bet that deep down inside he's not thinking "Boy, I'm glad I pulled the trigger that day....". Even if he believed, and still believes, that he was justified and correct he must still be wondering if there was some other way.
 
I cannot believe a state ever had gone against everything we as Americans believe as far as innocent until proven guilty when it comes to a claim of self defense when every other criminal case was still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glad they finally got SD cases the same courtesy as the other criminal situations...

Well, whether you believe Fish is innocent or not, or what he did was right, wrong or indifferent, he is surely the quintessential example of why we should not...
Click to expand...
BLABBER TO THE POLICE AND DA UNTIL LEGALLY REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY SKILLED IN SD SHOOTING TRIALS!
Brent
 
I wonder if Mr. Fish will have to agree to not sue the DA civilly in order to get the charges dropped or if the DA will go ahead and drop them without a release?
 
I do not have too much of an opinion on the Fish case (if he had shot the dogs I would have called for his head) but ,and I may be the lone wolf on this one, I am a little bit concerned about a law that would relieve anyone of liability simply because no one saw them kill a person. Is this law going to be used time and time again by defense lawyers to get dirtbags criminals off the hook simply because no one actually saw them shoot there victim? All they have to do is say "I was walking through the park and this lady came at me with a weapon in her hand" if they get caught and as long as there is no other side to the story they cannot be prosecuted?
 
"I was walking through the park and this lady came at me with a weapon in her hand" if they get caught and as long as there is no other side to the story they cannot be prosecuted?
Click to expand...

There's still basic forensic examination to be done.

If blood spatter shows up on the muzzle of your gun then that means you put the gun up to her head. If the slug is recovered from the ground then you shot at a downward angle. Conclusion: not self defense, probably murder.

If you say it all happened at 15 feet, but there is no powder contamination on the corpse and velocity indicates the shot may have been further than your story, then the conclusion would be you shot her from a distance.

It's not as simplistic as you make it.

The burden of proof falls on the state to prove you DID murder... rather than previously the burden of proof fell on the defendant to prove you DID NOT murder.

Seems straight-forward to me.
 
It's not as simplistic as you make it.
Click to expand...
So all you have to do is shoot them face to face (which is easy to do when holding someone up at gunpoint) and make sure your story matches the forensics. It does not matter how unlikely the story is as long as there is not a contradictory side to the tale?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top