"So you're just trying to convince the jury.."
you're not going to convince the jury - your lawyer will. shop around and find one that's done those types of cases. most will do a short phone call or sit-down consultation free. find out how the law in your state works.
it took me a little while to find the lawyer i thought was competent enough to defend in such a case
"So you're just trying to convince the jury.."
"you're not going to convince the jury - your lawyer will. shop around and find one that's done those types of cases. most will do a short phone call or sit-down consultation free. find out how the law in your state works."
I was asking the former prosecutor about his strategy. I see where he was going with his cross examination and I was wondering how he would respond to certain answers from the witness.
JayHof,
When examining a witness, do you cut him off if he tries to get to in depth. For eample, if you ask him how long he's been training and he answers "2 years, but that doen't mean i'm fearless," would you cut him off at two years? I'm just curious how you would respond if he questioned (or his lawyer on re-direct) the nexus between training and fearlessness, in other words if he said "yea I train, but how does that preclude me from perceiving imminent danger?" Or would you rely on the probability that a jury would never believe a trained fighter would experience fear sufficient to rise to the level required to justify the assault?
Hello people, and thank you for the very interesting info.
My situation was not verbal, I was pushed from behind enough to slightly lose balance and almost fall on this sitting person. On top of that I have a sprained wrist..which is good in hindsight, as I probably would have been more agressive otherwise..
But yes, I was wondering if i well placed jab to the nose would be "excessive use of force" in the case where someone would be pushed AND (which is not what happened to me but who knows in the future) verbally assaults you/gets in your face?
as far as altercations on the road go no matter whos right or wrong the state will screw the first person to get out of their car and approach the other car.they call it being the aggressor or some shit and its a screwed up law in some cases and in some cases its not
jayhof --
so you have to show two things?
1) that the def. reasonably believed that he was afraid of serious bodily injury [is this a subjective standard? e.g., from his perspective?]
and
2) the belief in the fear was reasonable? [objective standard]
i wonder if being a martial artist affects a subjective belief that danger or SBI is imminent by making you more likely to think that a threat exists, or less likely?
TheAdonis.Thanks for your post. That's one point I was going to make. Asserting self-defense can be expensive; it has monetary, emotional and social costs that most folks don't think about. It may be fun to sit around somewhere and talk about your right to self defense, but it ain't fun when your are looking a jail time and you have to go pay a lawyer several thousand dollars
Hey Skimhead.
so you have to show two things?
1) that the def. reasonably believed that he was afraid of serious bodily injury [is this a subjective standard? e.g., from his perspective?]
( YOU HAVE THE CORRECT! - SUBJECTIVE, BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT - IE, WHERE'S YOUR WITNESSES; AND WHAT'S WORSE, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE GUY YOU FOUGHT SHOWS UP WITH BUBBA, HIS BROTHER, HIS COUSIN AND HIS OTHER COUSIN - AND THEY ALL CLAIM YOU ATTACKED FOR NO REASON!!)
and
2) the belief in the fear was reasonable? [objective standard]
(THE VERY KORRECT!)
(3 DON'T FORGET THAT YOUR USE OF FORCE MUST BE REASONABLE. IF HE PUSHES YOU AND YOU BREAK HIS NOSE - A JURY MAY NOT THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. IF YOU TRAIN, THEY MAY THINK IT IS EXCESSIVE JUST BECAUSE YOU TRAIN.)
i wonder if being a martial artist affects a subjective belief that danger or SBI is imminent by making you more likely to think that a threat exists, or less likely?
(THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. WHAT IS A JURY GOING TO THINK? WILL THEY BELIEVE THAT A TRAINED FIGHTER WAS REALLY IN FEAR? OR WILL THEY THINK, HE'S JUST SAYING IT NOW - BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GET OUT OF TROUBLE!)
As far as the questions about how I allow people to answer questions. I generally start cross examination by asking the witness to ask me if they don't understand a question. If they want to keep answering questions that I didn't ask or add information to their answers, I usually just start finishing the questions with, "correct", "isn't that right", etc. Then, they look silly if they answer more than yes or no. If they blabber too much, I just let them run on, and on, and on . . . . Witnesses who answer more than they are asked just don't look credible - they look desperate. Especially, next to bloody photos.
(THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. WHAT IS A JURY GOING TO THINK? WILL THEY BELIEVE THAT A TRAINED FIGHTER WAS REALLY IN FEAR? OR WILL THEY THINK, HE'S JUST SAYING IT NOW - BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GET OUT OF TROUBLE!)
well, i was thinking there's two ways you can point out the subjective element:
1) as a trained fighter, you couldn't really possibly believe that you were in danger of SBI
2) as a trained fighter, you possess a greater ability to recognize danger at an earlier time than most, therefore, you were genuinely in fear [maybe similar to how a police officer or security guard could believe suspect was pulling out a gun, even if it later turns out not to be true?]
There's lots of ways to point out the subjective element. A different way for each attorney and each set of facts. I guess the important point I was trying to make is that there is a lot more involved in asserting a claim of self defense than most people realize. Instead of stating that theoretically, I thought the hypothetical cross examination would demonstrate the burden of proof.
Just got back from court . . . did I leave any questions unanswered??
and i stress to shop AROUND for lawyers - i had one say it'll be $5k retainer and the outcome was unknown at best. others told me $1500 and had defended such cases before, which put me at a little more at ease..
"my friend" just got a 200 fine plus court costs.. and that was for hitting a chic. She involved herself in a fight she shouldnt have. Im wondering how much this would have changed if the da knew i fought????
I am too old for fighting so I call the cops. Unless I have no other choice but to use physical force to defend myself then I will have to. I will definitely not be the aggressor.
I met a famous American personality, who is now a BJJ black belt years ago and he told a funny story about a street fight. A student of his was attacked after a traffic accident by the other driver. As the student was surprised by the fight, he was initially in the guard. He fought his way to the top position and began pounding the attacker. When he hear the police siren approaching he rolled his attacker back into the guard.
(Here the good "evidence" lesson . . . )
When the police arrive, they took out the night sticks and began to beat the original attacker who was in the guard. The police arrested the attacker for assault because he was on top and trying to swing on the s tudent at the time they arrived.
You have the right to self defense, but proving it is a different question. The witnesses (police) saw the BBJ student getting attacked, even though he may have been deadly from that posiion . . .
Who knows what would have happened if the BJJ student had stayed in mount, even though he was not the original aggressor.
Jayhof has caught the coaching the witness!
I routinely prepare witnesses for testimony. It's part of my job.
great thread!
Much thanks to Jayhof and TheAdonis
"He fought his way to the top position and began pounding the attacker. When he hear the police siren approaching he rolled his attacker back into the guard. (Here the good "evidence" lesson . . . )
When the police arrive, they took out the night sticks and began to beat the original attacker who was in the guard. The police arrested the attacker for assault because he was on top and trying to swing on the s tudent at the time they arrived. "
-
straight from WWF/E LOL!!!!!
Yeah, I think it's sad that people get off easy in court, just because they picked on the wrong fucking guy in the street. Basically, the law states, that if you are a trained fighter, and someone pulls a knife on you, and you beat his ass down to defend yourself, you go to jail.