Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Wish me luck...if you're of a mind to...

Keith
A point to consider.
Shooting for the pelvis is fairly tactics. If you hit the pelvis bone, the target goes down. If you bounce a bullet around the pelvic cavity you slow him down, maybe drop him, maybe kill him now, but most definately later. In combat the shot guy will screaming and yelling making his buddies very uncomfortable.

Jim

Back to the subject...Bart, a burglary (at least in Texas) is defined as an individual entereing a building or habitaion, without consent, to commit a FELONY or theft.

280Rem., as you know, a conviction is probable. Obviously this depends on the jury, and the "fruitloop" factor. The difference between the murder and manslaughter will depend on the prosecutions ability to show that the crime was planned and not the spontanious act created by "SUDDEN" passion.

Good Luck!

Pat

One thing that must be considered in this part of our fair state is that an overwhelming portion of the populace in that area has a staunch fear and suspicion of law enforcement. The race wars of the 1960's remain fresh on the minds of some who continue to hold law enforcement accountable for "turning on the dogs and water hoses" ect. Its a tough situation to be in when the police are not trusted, and then you, as a prosecutor, are not trusted/liked, as has been well pointed out here on the forum redundantly, some folks just don't like lawyers. In attending several of Jim's trials, I have noticed that the prosecution, as well as defense, has to find a way to win over the trust of the jury. Usually in small ways. Jim had one lady one time that wanted the air conditioning turned down because she was hot. Jim, being hot natured as well, was all for doing that to oblige her. He won her over with that small gesture.
I have also noticed in doing business for my own firm in that area, people tend to generalize and assume that if you are white and from the city (Birmingham) that you cant be trusted. That is a lot to overcome in a trial setting where one cant speak freely to another. Jim does a damn good job of finding ways to cater to his jury that are subtle and within the confines of ethical decorum. It lets them know that he is listening to them and taking them seriously. His Grand Jury groups love him for that. I will see them out in restaurants and they will tell me how much they liked him and how he made the experience easier for them.
Facts of this case are important. If I recall, the autopsy on this particular case was very incriminating as the specifics pointed out that the shot occurred from a posterior angle, verifying that the victim was shot in the back. Speaking in generalities, when someone is shot in the gut, if the bowel is affected in any manner, you got trouble. This particular case was proof in point that surgical retrieval is necessary but often avoided secondary to escalated risk. An infected gut left to simmer undetected can do irreversible harm that no antibiotic can fix. Furthermore, a hypertensive diabetic shot in the gut is just a death sentence. If the shot itself don't kill em, the impending infection and resulting diabetic complications will.
The proof is easy to present on the prosecution side of this case as it has been well documented and the actual victim has already given testimony on his own behalf prior to his death.
I am curious to see what strategy the defense will employ????
On any note, the medical facts are overwhelmingly incriminating and leave little to the imagination of the lethal harm this shot caused.

I may have to take a trip down south with Jim to see this thing go to trial.

If I was on the jury, and if all was proved as you say, the term 'slam dunk' would be apt..

He should get life, at least...

Here's hoping that you lose and become a quadriplegic in a car accident on the way home.

Excuse me.
What the heck is this about?
Jim

I am curious to see what strategy the defense will employ????
=================================================================

Defendabt is going to have to take the stand and, while appropiately emotional, describe his uncontrollable sobbing and devastation he felt during that 20 mile car ride. How his wife's adultery and illicit behavior decimated him and his life.The victim deserved it, kind of thing, and "in my state of shock and devastation, I made a human error for which I will regret forever regardless of what this jury decides" The defense lawyer is trying this case to obtain a manslaughter conviction, pure and simple. No other choice but to plea to a murder charge. It's what trial lawyers live for!!

What do you think about that Officer Patrick Powell?

The missing 5/8ths rears his dumb-ass around here every time he gets work release.

Good Luck-----This guy needs to be put in the Grey Bar Hotel for the duration!

=================================================================

Memo to file...Remember to strike Mr. Redneck from any future jury trials!!!!

Not to stir the pot, but judges who are not objective, who do not truely practice 'innocent until proven guilty" are part of the problem.

Casey

Jim,

So the DA's office is willing to pea bargain? Is the defendant not interested in a plea or is he holding out for the manslaughter?

As an aside, I do believe that adultry should carry some kind of penalty--for both participants.

I do wish you luck.

Casey

Good luck, and keep on fighting.

BTW, if adultry was prosecuted, you probably couldn't find a jury in Alabama.

And 280 RSN, where did you get that picture of Tammy Faye as a blonde???

Yep.




OJ is definitely an exception--that trial was decided as soon as the jury was selected.

Too often DA offices have become agents of "policy". Often that means they pursue behaviors that tend to get attention at election time........

That's not to say Jim's case is one of them. Although there is a mitigating circumstance, it ain't mitigating enough to justify the behavior.

Like another poster suggested, don't shoot him--just kick her to the curb.......harshly.

Casey

I haven't finished reading this whole thread yet, but I'm with you, frogman43! Why bring a gun to someone's residence (out in plain sight so it can be seen by someone inside the house) if you haven't already thought about using it? Chasing the guy through his house is also indicative that he had a premeditated plan in mind.

I'd find him guilty of premeditated murder. IMHO, no one has the right to take another person's life, except in times of declared war if you're in the military.

You go, 280Rem!!! I know you'll do fine!

Penny

Sympathy is one thing, what is right (and justice) is another. I could feel very sorry for the guy whose wife was unfaithful, but I will never feel that that gives him the right to kill someone.

I know a lot of people in prison (both men and women), and some of them I truly love and care about. But I can't think of a single one who didn't deserve what he/she got in terms of incarceration and time.

Penny

I wasn't giving my personal feelings. I was expressing legal strategy and thought processes. Thought that's what Jim wanted.

You good folks got the easy part. I'm the devil's advocate!!

You're right, BW. But you don't speak for a jury.

OJ Simpson. Remember him? Or the Menendez brothers first trial?

Clearly, sympathy from the jurors played a big part. It shouldn't, but it's a fact of life.

Oh, I know... Just expressing how I feel.

I've only been seated on a jury once, and that was for a civil case. After two days of testimony, the two sides settled out of court over lunch. So much for that... My students got two days off from class, though... which they weren't horribly unhappy about.

Penny

I recently sat on a jury for a case that should have been a "slam dunk" but the cards didn't play out that way. All I can tell you is to cover all the facts no matter how trivial or apparent they may seem and remind them that they are to only debate facts in evidence. I was SICKENED by the process I witnessed, the jury forewoman was only interested in what was for lunch and when the next smoke break was, most of the members were too meek to speak or add anything to the conversation and several members (led by one very pushy woman who admitted she would never vote to send a young man of her race to prison) were creating any angle possible to let the defendant go, even to the point of creating a forensic hypothesis that wasn't supported by ANY facts in evidence. I had had enough and threw the red flag on that one but the judge wrote back that the question sent to him was a question about facts not in evidence and thus it wouldn't be addressed...DUH?? The whole point was half of the jury was basing their verdict on this dreamt up scenario. Hope you were able to get some strong jurors who don't watch CSI and will listen and understand the facts!! Some jurors have their mind made up and refuse to let the facts get in the way, some people just get tired of the process and tired of being belittled when they open their mouth and finally just vote with the loudest voice. Lucky for the defendant in this case several of us stuck to the facts and refused to "just get it over with".

I'm not sure if you can discuss sentencing or not, my guess would be no. Both of the juries I've sat on have had people bring up sentencing and right or wrong to some people it makes a difference on how they vote. In the case I was talking about above one lady said that she knew he was guilty and if she knew he would only get 3-5 years she would vote guilty but she was afraid he would get 20 or more years and she felt that was too much so she couldn't vote guilty, several others agreed. In that case giving the jury more than one option would have probably ended up in a guilty verdict (by a majority vote) instead of a hung jury.

Given the facts I think you have a pretty open and shut case..GUILTY...but...I think the OJ jury proved to the world that there is no such thing as a slam dunk case. Hopefully that's the exception not the rule.
Good Luck