Your Best Defense Is A Lawyer

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I'm not sure how these cases are classified, but would they really be referred to as "self-defense shootings" when the defendant is convicted? I would think that in order to answer the question it would be necessary for an expert to review all the homicide convictions to see which defendants might have had a chance of prevailing had they had the benefit of expert testimony. "

No. The vast majority of all cases where a shooter is charged with a crime involve mutual criminal activity, the shooter engaged in criminal activity, i.e., robbery/homicide, members of the same household, the shooter and victim know each other, or are gang related.

Eliminate the above, and you have a very very small pool of charged shootings to look at. Specifically, where the shooter shot someone to protect life and or property, and the shooter was charged with a crime.

Given the above, how many charged shootings nationwide do you have?

Of these shootings, how many do you think the shooters' firearms training was at issue or could even remotely be put at issue? Modifications to the shooter's firearm? Factory vs. reloaded ammunition? Actual cases.

I receive a weekly summary of all decisions from our higher courts, civil and criminal, in addition to the usual criminal defense publications, email lists, etc. I read them. I cannot recall one case in at least the past ten years in my State where the shooter's firearms training was at issue or could even remotely be put at issue-nothing even close. Maybe one or two at the most where the level of force used by the shooter was or could even be put at issue, but I cannot recall the specific facts of the cases and this was criminal not a civil suit.

Such cases do exist. NY subway shooter-Goetz. Mas has actual experience with these cases. I do not. That is why I asked. What happened? What was the outcome? How many such cases is he actually seeing out there?
 
Specifically, where the shooter shot someone to protect life and or property...
Click to expand...
This is begging the question. If the shooting was clearly about protecting life then there's obviously no need for an expert witness. If one truly desires to accurately assess which cases might have benefited from the services of an expert witness, I don't think it's possible nor reasonable to take such a simplistic approach.
Given the above, how many charged shootings nationwide do you have?

Of these shootings, how many do you think the shooters' firearms training was at issue or could even remotely be put at issue? Modifications to the shooter's firearm? Factory vs. reloaded ammunition? Actual cases.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you have made an excellent case for using the experiences garnered from LEO trials given that you believe civilian cases are so rare.

Why is it that you wish to eliminate LEO trials from consideration? Unless one can show that an LEO would have a more difficult time being exonerated than a typical citizen (and therefore would have more need of resources such as expert witnesses), it would seem that this knowledge base would be quite applicable to the questions you have.
 
"This is begging the question. If the shooting was clearly about protecting life then there's obviously no need for an expert witness."

John I cannot follow your line of thought here. Not even a little.

When a civilian intentionally shoots someone, why else would they have fired except for to protect life or property. Intense dislike? Target practice? The victim voted for Hillary? Sorry, can't follow what you are saying John.
 
RR, like John, I've found that there's little difference in the dynamics of LEO v. private citizen self-defense shootings.

I'm not clear on the cause of your confusion. It's obvious from your posts that you don't have much if any experience in wrongful death claims, criminal or civil, arising out of legitimate self-defense shootings. (I don't do "scumbag versus scumbag" cases.)

Experts are brought in to show things like time-frames and relative danger posed by various weapons, such as knives, to the defendant (TN v. Robert Barnes, for example). Or why a decedent might have been shot many times (TX v. John Allen Curtis). Or why shots striking the decedent in the back could be fired in self-defense (FL v. Mary Hopkin), or why a citizen might be carrying two guns and shoot an unarmed man attempting to disarm him, unless he was a Rambo looking to kill someone (FL v. Zane Britt).

All four of those citizens were freed by the jury after being tried for murder (or, in Mary's case, manslaughter). I was happy to have some small part in helping to regain their freedom.

Prosecutors don't come out of law school with an understanding of the dynamics of violent encounters: speed of fire, disparity of force, action vis-a-vis reaction, etc. They sometimes assume a shot in the back is cowardly murder, that more than one or two shots constitute malice, etc. These things generally require an expert to explain. As you should know as a member of the criminal defense bar, the attorney can't testify, and the client's testimony in this regard is open to challenge as to lack of expertise, and would be seen as self-serving in any case.

RR, if you're a practicing criminal defense attorney, I'm sure you belong to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as I do. Check the NACDL archives for the writings of Attorney Lisa Steele. You'll find them enlightening.

Best wishes,
Mas
 
I cannot recall one case in at least the past ten years in my State where the shooter's firearms training was at issue or could even remotely be put at issue-nothing even close.
Click to expand...

RR,

There are 49 other States to be considered.

One of the things I learned many years ago when I was a young federal narcotics agent was that while most State laws were fairly similar, attitudes in prosecution were not. And THAT is a self-defense shooter's worst nightmare--

The overzealous and/or politically aspiring prosecutor.

He/she has a limitless budget and limitless resources to bury you.

It is with those waste-products within our legal system that expert witnesses play a valuable role, all the moreso in front of a jury.

I will also give a huge +1 to Mr. Ayood's advice of "know which lawyer you want just as well as which gun you want" when it comes to potential self-defense situations.

Remember: Self-defense doesn't stop as soon as the bad guy goes down. In fact, many would say that is the point to where it is just beginning.

Jeff
 
Sorry, can't follow what you are saying John.
Click to expand...
Begging the question is phrasing your premise and conclusion in such a way that they circularly support each other regardless of the validity of either.

For example, you eliminate anyone involved in a fight although being involved in a fight doesn't mean that a person can't legitimately claim self-defense. In fact, the first TX CHL shooting could accurately be described as a roadrage fistfight that ended in a fatal shooting. Yet the shooter was acquitted and rightfully so.

Had he been convicted, your screening process would have eliminated the case and therefore you would not have examined it to see if expert witness testimony might have made a difference in his case.

By also trying to eliminate LEO shootings from consideration, you further reduce the pool of shooting trials to draw on and the result is that your premise follows--there is no need (or only very rarely a need) for expert witnesses in self-defense shootings.

This is very similar to the technique used to paint gun ownership in a bad light by saying that a gun in the house is more likely to kill an occupant than to kill a criminal. Focusing only on situations where criminals are killed rules out all the cases in which a criminal is only frightened away or injured. The result is that the usefulness of guns in self-defense can be made to look quite minimal. The fact is that 80% (or more) of the time self-defense doesn't involve firing the gun and about 80% of the time when someone is shot with a handgun they survive. Which means that by virtue of how the question is couched, perhaps 95% (or more) of self-defense gun uses are eliminated from consideration and the premise (guns don't stop crime, they're a danger to the owners) seems to follow as a consequence.
 
My oldest son is an attorney. I raised him. Sent him to school. I changed his diapers when he was a baby. He ended up with two b.s. degrees in psychology and economics. He then went back to college and got his law degree and then got his law license. I know him well and I love him dearly BUT as smart as he is, I wouldn't want him to represent me in court. I'm still thinking that I ought to run a DNA test on him just to make sure of his parentage or whatever... How could this happen to me???? I thought I raised him better than that!!
 
I have represented a number of people who have used a weapon- a knife or firearm to defend themselves. While injuries inflicted involved 'grievous bodily harm' I have not represented someone in respect to a murder.

Only use a gun or knife to defend yourself or family against a perception that you or they are about to be injured. I would not use a firearm to protect against damage to property.

After the deed is done contact the Police. Do exactly as they tell you to ensure that you do not wind up becoming a shooting victim yourself.

They may arrest you. Do not make a statement. Request to speak to a lawyer, request bail. If placed in the cells resist the temptation to discuss what happened with anyone else- other occupants of cells will often try and get you to talk with view to trying to do a deal with the Police to improve their position in respect to their own case.

Resist the temptation to yell abuse and vent. Remember your gaolers are probably taking notes.

The best way to find a lawyer is usually recommendation. This can be difficult if you are not of the 'criminal classes' and do not know anyone who can recommend someone to you. Talk to other lawyers and find out who is good in an area of practice. I would see who has recently given talks at continuing legal education training for lawyers and approach them. Often regional bars have referral mechanisms and if you explain the nature and seriousness of the matter they can arrange an appropriate referral.

Cases usually turn on the facts. It is therefore important if firearms were used that the Attorney understand how guns work. If he /she 'hates guns' they may not understand aspects of your defence.

I am a great fan of the Jury system. Unfortunately jurors include gun haters as well as owners. Try and use a type of gun that is common place and most people can understand you using- I would tend to choose a sporting firearm over a military firearm, and I would use common sporting ammunition.

I would seek to avoid doing anything that would lead to an inference being drawn that I had sought out or brought on the event.

Your position may be better if you used an improvised weapon such as a screwdriver to stab an intruder rather than a big knife.

I would avoid black semi automatic rifles, riot guns, firearms with silencers, ninja knives, rambo knives, knives with double sided blades that are clearly of an anti personnel rather than a hunting nature.
 
Well, it's been a couple of weeks since I checked this thread, and see that it has been fleshed out a little. I'll try to address some of RR's concerns, regarding the use of expert witnesses in self-defense trials, along with why they are not reported in the case law.

First, only appeals are reported, so if a case ends at the trial court level, and no appeal, no record. I would postulate that most self-defense cases are not appealed, because the aggressive prosecutor has just lost the case, and wants to slink away and not loose it again a year later at the appellate court level. Besides, what is there to appeal? A self-defense case is settled at trial level, because typically, there are no rules of law broken in a self-defense trial, unless it is the prosecutor who proposes such, and the judge agrees, sending the defendant to jail over admitting inadmissable evidence, or improper jury instructions, or whatever. In any event, most self-defense cases do not go to appeal.

Secondly, most self-defense cases do not go to trial. The goal of a good self-defense "legal defense" is to get the case dismissed before trial, or even better, never charged. Consequently, if the defender's lawyer can interject the level of training the defender had prior to charges being pressed, then the prosecutor will be more likely to look at the case with a critical eye, understand that he can't win it because by looking at the case with that critical eye, realizes that the defender was right.

Third, the role of the expert in a self-defense case is not to explain why the defender was justified, in fact, he can't. That is the question for the jury, as they alone can determine if a person was justified in shooting, and if that is what the expert is supposed to do, he will not be allowed to testify, (if the judge rules correctly on the motion in limine). In fact, this is exactly what occured in the self-defense case written about here:

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/EJournal.html

Go to the April edition of the E-journal, and then scroll down to page 8, (a Tale of Five Witnesses). In this particular instance, I was not allowed to testify, not because I didn't have information the jury should have heard, but because my gist of my testimony was presented to the judge wrong. The defendant, (acting pro se) didn't explain to the judge correctly why I should be allowed to testify, and thus I was excluded.

Lastly, where a defendant's self-defense training kicks in at a trial, is his ability to testify as to his mindset when he pulled the trigger, his mindset being a critical component to his self-defense claim. WHY DID HE FEEL HIS LIFE WAS IN DANGER? He can explain the training he has taken, and why that training led him to reasonably believe he was about to be killed. This is no different than a police officer justifying his use of deadly force in an officer involved shooting.

Hope this helps.

One more thing, Lawyer Daggit and RR. Our next move for the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is to start putting together the Network Affiliated Attorney listings. If either of you (or any other attorneys reading this) are interested in serving as a resourse for armed citizens in your area, please e-mail me at mhayes@armedcitizensnetwork.org and I will forward you the appropriate information.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
RR said:
...clients involved in self-defense shootings may be arrested, but they won't be charged. You won't see it. The one's who are charged will be those who shoot their spouse or someone they know, or were involved in an illegal activity.
Click to expand...
This is either a blatant lie, an intentional exaggeration, or evidence of a truly amazing ignorance of reality, I'm not sure which.

The very first TX CHL shooting, one which received a good bit of publicity, resulted in the CHL shooter being charged. He was not involved in any illegal activity and didn't shoot his spouse or someone he knew. He went to trial and was acquitted.

Maybe you should spend more time working on your facts and less time coming up with creative ways to "slime" those you disagree with. Do you really think that filling your post with innuendo, "backhanded compliments" and thinly veiled personal attacks will make your case seem stronger?

If you want to continue this discussion as an exchange of information you're free to do so. However, you will not turn this into a "credentials contest". Especially not while you're posting anonymously.
 
I deleted/edited the posts for the sole reason that some who may read them would view my comments as being derogatory toward Mas and Marty's abilities as writers, researchers, teachers and trainers. I disagree with the marketing hype.
 
Last edited:
Get your CCW. Carry reloads if you want. Get a trigger job on your gun. Get training. Marty and Mas are good sources for training. Don't need CCW "insurance." Don't need a lawyer on retainer. Don't need your training "records" in a sealed envelope. And you don't need to spend $$$ to join a Citizen's whatever. Stop the nonsense. Stop exploiting gunowners to make a buck. Simple.
Click to expand...

+1

Those who disagree are free to cite contradicting case law.

However, you will not turn this into a "credentials contest".
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Arguments should be able to stand on their own. This should be equally applicable to BOTH sides.
 
Methinks RR is becoming self-contradicting. Back at post 41, he wrote:

"Mas has actual experience with these cases. I do not."

Me, I'd be inclined to listen to the guy who has experience, over the guy who admits that he has none. But, hey, folks can take their info from whence they choose.



In a post early this morning, RR writes:

"There is no market for experts representing civilians in self-defensive shootings."

Well, if that's the case, there's nothing to worry about. No one will hire us, and RR has wasted his time posting.

Yet RR also writes:

"you will learn how an attorney uses experts. We carefully hire "experts" who will agree with our theory of defense. I could find and buy an expert who would testify the earth is square if I look hard enough."

RR has just unwittingly answered his own question. When his prostitute experts testify against you that the Earth is is square, you need honest experts who will testify that no, the Earth is in fact round.

RR writes:
"The hype Mas spews is nonsense, it is deceptive, it is wrong, it is false, it is hype, and it is pure marketing. "

Actually, if what I wrote was BS, there are far too many real attorneys and trained investigators reading it, for me to still be getting it published. But tell me, RR: IF I'M WRITING ABOUT LIABILITY TO BUILD BUSINESS FOR MYSELF, HOW DOES TELLING FOLKS HOW TO STAY OUT OF COURT ACCOMPLISH THAT?

Folks, we've got some trollery going on here. I dunno about RR yet, but a currently ongoing thread in TFL's Legal section on liability in regard to trigger pulls is convincing me more and more that Stage 2 not the attorney he claims to be. There, and in a Tactics section thread on carrying at home, he seems to be just another anonymous guy who likes to argue and put down others, and is showing signs of a poorly-founded superiority complex.

Yours for reality,
Mas
 
Finding a good self defense attorney who is also pro ccw shouldn't be too hard. If you have a good local online gun forum that is populated with instructors, attorneys, and leo you'll get some good recommendations. If not call a couple of firearms instructors in your area and ask who they would call. If you know of a pro ccw judge in your area this would be a good question to ask him/her as well.

Put the name and contact information of the attorney you choose on a card in your wallet. On the other side of the card put Massad Ayoob's list of 5 things to say if you are involved in a shooting:

1. This person attacked me (point out the attacker).
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. The witnesses are there (point out witnesses).
4. The evidence is there (point out evidence).
5. Officer, you'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I've spoken with counsel. (Repeat number 5 until attorney shows up)

I carry a card like this because it's not the point in time I want to begin the attorney search. I want to be able to call and get the attorney or someone from their office on the scene ASAP. I'm also sure that under the stress of such an incident I won't remember exactly what I'm supposed to say or do. Having the card to hold a read will help keep focus and prevent the blabbering that people do under high stress.

It is probably a good idea to contact the attorney you settle on and put them on retainer. I still need to do this. My understanding is that it's under $100 to do this and because you'll already have an established relationship with the attorney it will make things easier if you need to call them. You'll also get the number to call that will get them by your side at 3am.
 
Last edited:
Here's what some folks just either don't get, don't accept, or have been too charmed/sheltered to have experienced. . . .

I'm a pilot and airplane owner. If you are a smart pilot, you are a member of Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association. It goes without saying that it is analogous to being a smart gun owner and being a member of the National Rifle Association.

One of our benefits that is offered to AOPA members is Legal Services. It costs something like an extra $29 per year in addtion to your normal dues.

In the event that you run afoul of the FAA or local aviation rules/regulations and you get notice from the government that they are coming after you for administrative or punitive action, you call up AOPA and they will supply you with an experienced attorney who specializes in aviation law. For free.

I've been flying for I don't know how long and have never needed this. But knowing the damn government the way I do, I pay this extra legal fee on my membership gladly and without hesitation every year when I renew my dues.

I wish the NRA had a similar deal.

What RR and Stage2 fail to disclose is that prosecutors are political animals and that most Americans live like an ostrich--our heads are either stuck in the sand or up our butts most of the time when it comes to the reality of how things are all around us.

And rather than accept and prepare, we choose to believe "That stuff won't happen to me, it always happens to someone else."

If THAT'S the case, then why do so many of us choose to carry a weapon when our statistical odds of EVER needing it are remote?

One thing IS FOR CERTAIN, and hear me out because I'll guaran-damn-tee you that I know this FIRSTHAND better than almost any one of you participating in this discussion--

When/if you have to use your weapon, you want every available resource ON YOUR SIDE WORKING FOR YOU! I cannot emphasize this enough.

As I said earlier in agreeing with Mr. Ayoob, self-defense doesn't end when you draw your gun and fire it to save yourself or someone else. In most jurisdictions, that's when TRUE self-defense is just beginning, thanks to our f'd up legal system.

As far as the marketing hype? I honestly don't see it as "hype." In fact, I rarely even see it. Granted, I do not subscribe to any gun rags other than Handloading and the NRA publications, but I'm trying to recall the last time I saw Mas Ayoob's smiling countenance peering at me through an ad or TV commercial or billboard, or even through some junk mail (which, before I retired from that industry, I would call "direct marketing").

And if anyone does see it as marketing hype, so what? I would see it as a natural extension of having more and more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons, and thus, wanting to be more fully prepared for the entire process of self-defense.

And isn't that a good thing?

Jeff
 
Those who disagree are free to cite contradicting case law.

That statement shows that someone doesn't understand the issue as many folks have pointed out. If you are tried, there is some doubt as to legit nature of your action. You haven't pulled off a definitional good shoot - now have you?

At trial, there is a mountain of evidence from simulations that appearance factors - clothes, race, age, blah, blah - and weapons issues influence juries. It is also clear from legal experts here and other ones, that such processes don't make 'case law'.

In fact, the application of such implicit biases is just now being picked up in terms of racial bias and being argued in court. It's a pretty new area.

The inability of some folks to understand this point is rather stunning and shows how biases work.

BTW, if Mas or Marty have expertise and try to use it to make a living - what's wrong with that? I have expertise and try to sell it honestly. When I've testified, I've given my evaluation and if the lawyer doesn't like it - too bad.
 
What RR and Stage2 fail to disclose is that prosecutors are political animals and that most Americans live like an ostrich--our heads are either stuck in the sand or up our butts most of the time when it comes to the reality of how things are all around us.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what this is other than a fallacious argument. Sure there have been examples of bad prosecutors, but they are the very limited exception and not the rule. The people that I have worked with were stand up folks who were doing a job that they (mostly) loved because they wanted to see justice done. This idea, that seems to be very very prevalent on boards like this, that all prosecutors are chomping at the bit to have another notch on their briefcase regardless of whether they think the person is innocent or not. Thats pure bunk.


That statement shows that someone doesn't understand the issue as many folks have pointed out. If you are tried, there is some doubt as to legit nature of your action. You haven't pulled off a definitional good shoot - now have you?
Click to expand...

Very true, however without dragging another discussion into this one, the factors that RR listed are not sufficient to create the type of doubt that is necessary to be charged. If I shoot someone and have a trigger job on my gun, that alone isn't going to get me charged. If I shoot someone with reloads that alone isn't going to get me charged. If I have both, that alone isn't sufficient to get me charged.


At trial, there is a mountain of evidence from simulations that appearance factors - clothes, race, age, blah, blah - and weapons issues influence juries. It is also clear from legal experts here and other ones, that such processes don't make 'case law'.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. There are plenty of these issues that present themselves in appellate cases as well as ways of finding convictions from cases that don't make it to the appellate level.


In fact, the application of such implicit biases is just now being picked up in terms of racial bias and being argued in court. It's a pretty new area.

The inability of some folks to understand this point is rather stunning and shows how biases work.
Click to expand...

I'd say just the opposite. That the inability of people who work with the justice system to understand what it takes to get a conviction is rather stunning.


BTW, if Mas or Marty have expertise and try to use it to make a living - what's wrong with that? I have expertise and try to sell it honestly. When I've testified, I've given my evaluation and if the lawyer doesn't like it - too bad.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all. However there also isn't anything wrong with people making legitimate objections to the information they present.
 
I practice in Australia. I can see a lot of use in people doing a course on defence before getting a CCW permit.

I think there is limited scope for an 'expert' in respect to civilian court matters.

The only caveat I would add to that is when one is using a good attorney (perhaps a QC with particular skills you want) and he has limited experience with firearms. A few sessions with an 'expert' could provide him with a necessary education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top