19Oct06

Comments on self-defense shooting, from a friend and instructor, who is als o a district judge and personally presides over many of these cases:

"An objective standard will be applied to your situation, by twelve people who weren't there and likely have no clue as to what it really takes to eme rge victorious. That being the case, one must be able to articulate clearly not

only what was done but, more importantly, why it was necessary.

It may well be good tactics to limit oneself to four rounds before moving, but if you explain it that way to a jury (instead of simply saying you stopp ed shooting in order to assess the situation and see if additional shooting wa s necessary) you will find that the jury (1) has not the foggiest idea what you're talking about and (2) you have come across as cold, surgical, and detached. That will probably not end with a good result.

Remember, trials have little to do with 'truth,' in any obje ctive sense. They have everything to do with appearances, impressions, and perceptions. As the accused, you have to insure the jury sees the situation in a light favorable to you, and you do that by presenting yourself as a likeable, sympathetic, even naive person. Whether that is actually true or not is i rrelevant."

Comment: Welcome to Planet Earth!

/John

19Oct06

A friend who does criminal cases sent me this. It is a closing argument in

the defense of a person on trial for criminal violence:

"Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecutor in this case has proven one thing to the satisfaction of all of us: a terrible crime has been committed. And, I know he doesn't like my client, and I suspect you also d on't like him. In truth, I don't like him either.

None of this is surprising. My client isn't likeable. And, although the prosecutor has made a convincing argument that a terrible crime has been committed, the case against my client is weak and largely circumstantial. But, he is hoping you'll convict anyway, mostly because the accused is not likeable .

If you or I were on trial for the same offence, such shoddy evidence would fall far short of the mark, but, since my client is not likeable, the prosecutor is doing his best to persuade you to overlook all that and convi ct anyway, and he is sincerely hoping that is okay with you.

Someday, this prosecutor, or some other prosecutor, will decide you're not likeable! He will then do his best to throw you in prison, solely because he doesn't like you. Is that okay with you? Because, it's not okay with me! "

Comment: Criminal trials cannot be about convicting people because they are

not likeable. They must be about convicting people because they are guilty . When our system loses sight of that, the stage is set for throwing people i n prison solely because they are Jewish, or because they own guns, or because

they hold unpopular views.

Marginalizing minorities, pushing them so far from the mainstream that thei r lives become insignificant, indeed expendable, is the province of autocrats

and tyrants, and the foregoing is their preferred method of getting rid of political opponents.

Our system of justice is one of the dwindling few that even makes a pretens e of equity. We treat it casually at our peril!

/John