Deaf Smith
New member
There is no rule anywhere requiring a person to remain in danger.
No but be prepared to explain your behavior in court. Most cops and juries have this 'flight = guilt' thing.
Deaf
There is no rule anywhere requiring a person to remain in danger.
And it is embodied in established legal principles.Most cops and juries have this 'flight = guilt' thing.
And maybe your explanation will be convincing, or maybe it will not.FireForged said:this is not advice but as far as I am concerned. If I must use my firearm in public, I will reholster and get the heck out of the "danger zone" asap....
OldMarksman said:And it is embodied in established legal principles.Most cops and juries have this 'flight = guilt' thing.
...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....
...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'
McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.
We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....
... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.
Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...
...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:
"Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt
"A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...
See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....
If you are to be judged by twelve, a number of people will have decided that the evidence against you indicates a reasonably high likelihood that you will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.If the situation gets 'to there', you have to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or stick around and possibly be carried by 6.
And maybe your explanation will be convincing, or maybe it will not
I believe that as long as you call 911 IMMEDIATELY, and stop as near as possible, any reasonable person will be able to understand why you took the action you did.
Possibility yes, but your credibility in presenting that explanation will likely be higher if you have not introduced evidence of flight as an indication of guilt.and that is a possibility no matter if I stay or not.And maybe your explanation will be convincing, or maybe it will not
Possibility yes, but your credibility in presenting that explanation will likely be higher if you have not introduced evidence of flight as an indication of guilt
I, leaving out the flight part of your statement and in my opinion is you have a 50/50 shot no pun intended of things going either way.If you are to be judged by twelve, a number of people will have decided that the evidence against you indicates a reasonably high likelihood that you will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It will then be up to you to present evidence in your defense
The advice to "Not go to those places" is good.