General Discussion

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)

13. The defense brought up many times that the extent of his injuries was actually immaterial

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 12:14 AM

Jul 2013

That even if he had NO injuries, he could have just as likely been in fear for his life. They stated that multiple times and had witnesses say that also.

So, based on that.

I'm trying to distill away all extraneous stuff and figure out if there was any way at all they could have won this case. Seems to me it was a fool's errand. And such cases should never ever go to trial again, because it's a waste of time and money. Isn't that the logical conclusion?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's how you prove a negative [View all] Duer 157099 Jul 2013 OP

The burden is ALWAYS greater on the prosecution. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #1

Like the op says rainy Jul 2013 #2

I'm not a scientist; I have no idea. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #3

In a self defense case, describe how "innocence" is determined? Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #5

First, the defendant is not required to prove that he is innocent... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #6

OK then: what evidence would have to exist in order to get a conviction Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #7

In this case where the defendant had visible injuries... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #8

I'm asking you now to use your imagination a bit Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #9

Use my imagination? NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #10

I'm not picking on you Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #11

I understand. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #12

The defense brought up many times that the extent of his injuries was actually immaterial Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #13

I have to disagree with you on at least part of your conclusion. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #14

But they said that even if he had NO injuries, the case would have been the same Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #16

If I had been on the jury... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #17

Cases that the DA thinks can't be won shouldn't go to trial Igel Jul 2013 #15

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #4