TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie wrote:But more importantly, none of this does away with the presumption of innocence.

I haven't seen a verdict,...

The defendant was found guilty on all counts today (Wednesday).

I can't say whether he was indicted by a grand jury. I know almost nothing about California law, but I would think charges of three of the most serious crimes on the books would go before a grand jury.

The presumption of innocence means that the state must prove its case without begging the question (i.e., "if you weren't guilty you wouldn't be on trial").

However, commentators such as ourselves who have no influence on the case can draw our own conclusions.

- Jim

Jury nullification is extremely rare; and I hope no jury thinks that laws against murder, burglary, and robbery are invalid.

UPDATE: The defendant was found guilty on all counts today:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck-90-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much for the lawsuit.

- Jim

The case went to the jury yesterday:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... ense-takes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I only want to point out that when a defendant goes to trial for a felony, the case has passed numerous hurdles:

• The police investigated it. A crime of this serious and complicated nature would be investigated pretty thoroughly.
• The DA decided to prefer charges.
• The grand jury agreed that probable cause existed.
• At any number of procedural steps the judge could have dismissed a charge or the entire case.

Can this system go wrong because of incompetence or malice, sure. That's why the jury is the final finder of fact. The jury can find not guilty just because the prosecution's arguments or the evidence don't pass the sniff test.

- Jim

Jim, I concluded that the defendant's father was a plaintiff because of this statement in the original story:

The negligence lawsuit was filed on his [the defendant's] behalf by his father and his criminal defense attorney.

I don't see how the father is a party.

These stories are usually difficult to understand because they are necessarily abbreviated, and the reporter may not be very knowledgeable about the law and may be under a deadline.

If I jumped to a conclusion, at least I was the first in this forum to do so.

- Jim

I don't understand what legal basis exists for the father being a party to the lawsuit. (Lawsuits by survivors of deceased people are a different matter.)

I don't think the world would be a better place if lawsuits could be filed against relatives of adults. That's kind of an archaic blood revenge concept - which by the way is how the mafiosi and cosa nostra still behave.

- Jim

Jumping Frog wrote:He'll probably sue them for calling him a jerk, and then sue the websites for allowing the postings.

He'd probably like to, but there is no basis for such suits. It's a settled point of law. For one thing, he would have to prove that a statement was false, i.e., that he is not a jerk. No jury would agree with that.

- Jim

The lawyer who filed this lawsuit now is whining because countless people are calling him a jerk online.
http://www.marinij.com/rosskentfieldgre ... e-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I honestly can't understand how this guy passed the bar exam. He does not seem to understand the difference between public criticism and testimony in court.

Dude, if you do something reprehensible, people are going to call you what you are, and some aren't going to be polite.

- Jim

California has had a castle doctrine legal protection for residents for years. It was called the "make my day" law when it was passed.

It is California Penal Code Section 198.5:

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence...

Thinking is wonderful. So is knowledge.

- Jim

In Greenbrae, California (Marin County), in January, a burglary suspect allegedly broke into the home of a 90-year-old man, tied him up, and started ransacking the house.

The homeowner freed himself and retrieved a handgun. The suspect allegedly shot the homeowner in the jaw. The homeowner shot the suspect twice, after which the suspect fled and was arrested.

Now the jailed suspect, whose trial has not concluded, has filed a lawsuit against the homeowner.

The case was actually filed by the defendant's attorney with the defendant's father as a plaintiff.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_21 ... 0-year-old" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think this will fly even in California. Aren't lawyers prohibited by so-called legal ethics from filing meritless lawsuits?

- Jim