Author Topic: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies  (Read 80844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: One More Try at Decision Conditions
« Reply #315 on: July 30, 2012, 03:13:49 PM »
Jeralyn's most extensive account I think is http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873.  I often refer to it.  I think to give a comprehensive jury (or judge in the case of the SYG hearing) instruction you have to somehow work 776.041 2a into 776.012.  I'll keep trying.  Or maybe Jeralyn or another lawyer will point out exactly what I have wrong.

Where are you getting an idea that they would be inter-mixed, that's the question. They are two completely separate statutes, and as pointed out, two completely separate decisions by a jury to decide. It's evident in the words "However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:" That is pretty clear to me that it's pretty much just like a flow chart.

Was the defendant reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death? If yes jump to "2:", if no jump to "11:"

2: Was the defendant the initial aggressor? Jump to 3a if yes, 10 if no.
3a: Did the defendant unsuccessfully attempt escape? If yes jump to 10, 3b if no.
3b: Did the defendant withdraw from contact and did the assailant continue to use force? 10 if yes, 11 if no

10: Verdict - Not Guilty
11: Verdict - Guilty


This is very broken down, but this is my understanding of how the decision would be made. Someone (a professional) will correct me if I'm wrong I think.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: One More Try at Decision Conditions
« Reply #316 on: July 30, 2012, 03:25:52 PM »
Where are you getting an idea that they would be inter-mixed, that's the question. They are two completely separate statutes, and as pointed out, two completely separate decisions by a jury to decide. It's evident in the words "However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:" That is pretty clear to me that it's pretty much just like a flow chart.

Was the defendant reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death? If yes jump to "2:", if no jump to "11:"

2: Was the defendant the initial aggressor? Jump to 3a if yes, 10 if no.
3a: Did the defendant unsuccessfully attempt escape? If yes jump to 10, 3b if no.
3b: Did the defendant withdraw from contact and did the assailant continue to use force? 10 if yes, 11 if no

10: Verdict - Not Guilty
11: Verdict - Guilty


This is very broken down, but this is my understanding of how the decision would be made. Someone (a professional) will correct me if I'm wrong I think.

That's the impression I get. I was confused about what the standard of proof was for a jury trial and a hearing to establish the defendant as the initial aggressor

I believe I was told that the state needed to prove that BRD in a jury trial but the defendant would need to prove that he was not the initial aggressor  by the preponderance of evidence in a SYG hearing. It would be nice to see that confirmed. 

« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 03:33:10 PM by Lousy1 »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: One More Try at Decision Conditions
« Reply #317 on: July 30, 2012, 03:31:36 PM »
Where are you getting an idea that they would be inter-mixed, that's the question. They are two completely separate statutes, and as pointed out, two completely separate decisions by a jury to decide. It's evident in the words "However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:" That is pretty clear to me that it's pretty much just like a flow chart.

Was the defendant reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death? If yes jump to "2:", if no jump to "11:"

2: Was the defendant the initial aggressor? Jump to 3a if yes, 10 if no.
3a: Did the defendant unsuccessfully attempt escape? If yes jump to 10, 3b if no.
3b: Did the defendant withdraw from contact and did the assailant continue to use force? 10 if yes, 11 if no

10: Verdict - Not Guilty
11: Verdict - Guilty


This is very broken down, but this is my understanding of how the decision would be made. Someone (a professional) will correct me if I'm wrong I think.

Your chart might well be a good approach (for an average jury??? :o)   However I think you have to substitute a beyond a reasonable doubt or more likely than not for each yes/no decision.  This is where a law professional would be helpful.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: One More Try at Decision Conditions
« Reply #318 on: July 30, 2012, 03:35:26 PM »
Your chart might well be a good approach (for an average jury??? :o)   However I think you have to substitute a beyond a reasonable doubt or more likely than not for each yes/no decision.  This is where a law professional would be helpful.


... substitute each question with "Were you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution that .. <insert question>" It's the same process.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #319 on: July 30, 2012, 04:13:34 PM »
So if Martin initiated the actual physical contact, Zimmerman has no obligation to try to escape or otherwise disentangle himself, but if Zimmerman initiated he has a duty to try to retreat before he's justified in shooting?

And in either case Zimmerman needs to believe himself to be in danger of death or severe damage?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #320 on: July 30, 2012, 04:22:20 PM »
So if Martin initiated the actual physical contact, Zimmerman has no obligation to try to escape or otherwise disentangle himself, but if Zimmerman initiated he has a duty to try to retreat before he's justified in shooting?

And in either case Zimmerman needs to believe himself to be in danger of death or severe damage?

Yes to both.  I think this discussion should have been in a thread under "Self Defense and Stand Your Ground".  Maybe Jeralyn can move these posts over there.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #321 on: July 30, 2012, 04:26:26 PM »
Yes to both.  I think this discussion should have been in a thread under "Self Defense and Stand Your Ground".  Maybe Jeralyn can move these posts over there.

I think I remember her saying she can't move individual posts. Only threads.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #322 on: July 30, 2012, 09:41:51 PM »
I can't move individual posts. How about continuing the discussion on the Stand Your Ground thread? Thjis one is about inconsistencies in witness testimony.

Feel free to cut and paste your comments about SYG in this thread over to the other one.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #323 on: July 30, 2012, 10:01:10 PM »
So is this thread supposed to be about inconsistencies between statements of Witness A and the statements of Witness B, or about things A said at one point that don't match up with what they said at some other point?

I went back and re-read the first post by Jozz, but still can't tell.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #324 on: July 30, 2012, 11:26:58 PM »
I think it's about the difference between the version of events provided by the different witnesses.

The point was that everyone is pointing out inconsistencies in GZ;s statements, but no one is talking about the contradiction in witness statements -- what one witness reported vs. what another reported.  (Not changed statments, although that's relevant to a discussion of why you might believe one witness over another who changed their story.)

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #325 on: July 31, 2012, 12:02:50 AM »
I think it's about the difference between the version of events provided by the different witnesses.

The point was that everyone is pointing out inconsistencies in GZ;s statements, but no one is talking about the contradiction in witness statements -- what one witness reported vs. what another reported.  (Not changed statments, although that's relevant to a discussion of why you might believe one witness over another who changed their story.)

Okay, that's where I got confused.

Given what's known about eyewitness testimony (experiment where guy bursts into classroom produces 12 different statements from 10 different witnesses), it would be strange if there weren't some differences between the recollections of Witness A and Witness B.

Offline IgnatiusJDonnelly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #326 on: August 02, 2012, 08:13:11 AM »
Okay, that's where I got confused.

Given what's known about eyewitness testimony (experiment where guy bursts into classroom produces 12 different statements from 10 different witnesses), it would be strange if there weren't some differences between the recollections of Witness A and Witness B.

I suggest renting the film RASHOMON.(yes, it is relevent to this thread)

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witnesses' testimony: Inconsistencies
« Reply #327 on: August 02, 2012, 10:52:55 AM »
I suggest renting the film RASHOMON.(yes, it is relevent to this thread)

Or for that matter "A Man Called Intrepid".

 

Site Meter
click
tracking