TexasCHLforum.com

The things that were the most interesting to me were...

1) Even though they explained disparity of force very well, the jurors still really got hung up on the fact that it was a man fighting unarmed women. They thought he should have been able to take whatever a couple women would dole out without pulling a weapon. This led the defense team to overcome the issue of man vs. women with the emphasis on the second man's involvement turning them into the metaphorical three-headed monster, which I find fascinating for some reason. The amount of psychological science involved in a good defense is amazing and the concept of chivalry is clearly not dead in our society, just perverted.

2) The fact that one of the women was a trained martial artist skilled in a grappling technique was not allowed to be discussed in court.

3) A lawyer on the jury heard all the evidence and the law on disparity of force and he went back to the deliberations incorrectly saying, "I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that he was not authorized to pull a weapon when the women didn't have one." Jury selection is crucial.

4) Why did he opt for a jury trial? If I were in his shoes, I'd probably want a trial by judge, especially in the case of a judge who was praised as being fair-minded and level-headed.

Hoi Polloi wrote:The things that were the most interesting to me were...

1) Even though they explained disparity of force very well, the jurors still really got hung up on the fact that it was a man fighting unarmed women. They thought he should have been able to take whatever a couple women would dole out without pulling a weapon. This led the defense team to overcome the issue of man vs. women with the emphasis on the second man's involvement turning them into the metaphorical three-headed monster, which I find fascinating for some reason. The amount of psychological science involved in a good defense is amazing and the concept of chivalry is clearly not dead in our society, just perverted.

2) The fact that one of the women was a trained martial artist skilled in a grappling technique was not allowed to be discussed in court.

3) A lawyer on the jury heard all the evidence and the law on disparity of force and he went back to the deliberations incorrectly saying, "I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that he was not authorized to pull a weapon when the women didn't have one." Jury selection is crucial.

4) Why did he opt for a jury trial? If I were in his shoes, I'd probably want a trial by judge, especially in the case of a judge who was praised as being fair-minded and level-headed.

Agreed. If I had been on that jury and heard the lawyer make that statement while "deliberating" or whatever a jury does, I would have asked to be shown the laws regarding use of force in the state. Knowing myself like I do, I imagine that I would have been nearly as nitpicky as the lawyer.
But after reviewing this article I realize that I would have never been selected for the jury in the first place as I have too many disqualifying factors. (retired Military, Gun-enthusiast, semi-literate...)

Purplehood said he's "semi-literate."

So I guess anyone in the market for an 18-wheeler
should talk to you, my friend? :-)

SIA

I am very afraid of being judged by 12 people who were unable to figure out how they could get out of jury duty, or worse yet, who didn't have a better option as to how they wanted to spend their day.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Purplehood said he's "semi-literate."

So I guess anyone in the market for an 18-wheeler
should talk to you, my friend? :-)

SIA

Yes. I like to have an audience.

BTW, what would we talk about?

Chilling article. I have been involved in enough cases though, one as plaintiff and several as a witness (long story) to realize that the adversarial system has mutated to a point where it is not about the whole truth. In fact ALL of the facts are prevented from being presented.

As a new guy around here, as it were....this is disturbing to me, and raises serious questions about our justice system. On the one hand, it appears that the defendant played his hand right (much respect), by adhering to his 5th amendment rights and not giving a statement to LE. Additionally, it took some serious moxy to hold steady on his second trial given the risk of a varitable lifetime in prison by not accepting the plea. I'd like to think I'd have done the same, but this guy had a family, and that had to be tough.

On one hand, one would like to think that if he were to just give an accurate account (statement) to the police, that he may have been no billed by a Grand Jury. On the other hand, that could be suicide with the way that stuff will be used against you, and so the conflict goes. I think it's clear that he excercised restraint before presenting his weapon, but this goes to show you that the letter of the law is only as effective as the jury's willingness to accept the social issues surrounding folks that carry. I'm saddened that these aggressors received a red cent from the insurance company, but more so by the fact that this man went through such an ordeal to be vindicated. Bravo to all of those that stepped up in defense of this American.