|
This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
|
|
The prosecutor claims that no jury in the state is going to think a reasonable person would be equally provoked…
Is that for the prosecutor to decide? The prosecutor doesn’t get to decide which defense the defendant should go with, does he? Of course he knows which ones might stand a better chance than others, but if he wants to roll the dice on a jury feeling that his behavior was reasonable, isn’t that something that he’s allowed to do?
I’d say “yes”, because a jury WILL make the decision. He’s either guilty or innocent of that particular charge.
The prosecutor does not get to choose which defense the defendant uses. He’s just telling the guy (and us) that this particular defense isn’t likely to work nowadays.
If this were a real case that went to trial, nothing’s stopping the defendant from making the argument to a jury.
The jury would be lying then.
Most people would throw nearby things at their partner (and often hit them) and destroy property if they believed they had caught them cheating.
Some would even plot or talk about murder. Although this clearly wasn’t an attempt to murder, it was just a temper tantrum.
Speak for yourself.
>Threw a heavy object with the intent to cause physical harm
>Just a temper tantrum
Okay, sure, dude. Whatever you say.
But he didn’t catch her, he only suspected it. She may have been innocent.
So if the defense attorney could manage to get a jury together of people like you, the defense might fly. Not gonna’ be easy.
For that matter, he was waiting for her to come home. Sure, things escalated once she did, but I suspect that the time involved would weaken his claim to the “heat of passion” part of it.
I used to get into depressions. They would stick with me until I went to sleep. In the morning, it would be all gone, and I’d kinda wonder why I’d been depressed.
If he was sitting there in the kitchen, he wouldn’t have just been sitting there thoughtless or daydreaming. No, he would have been thinking about her and getting more enraged.
Same day, without anything to distract, I’ll buy, but if you wake up enraged, you’re likely a danger to society.
In this case, he appears to have come home early for the *PURPOSE* of confronting her. That shows forethought, not “passion that overcame his reason”.