Quote:
Originally Posted by PSM
Then why vote on all three? In the case I was on, we quickly dismissed both murder counts then worked through the events on possible manslaughter. Eventually we found him not guilty due to self defense. If they found him guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, why go forward?
|
Just going off memory (no linky) but I recall recently reading that the charging was structured similar to what LHC mentioned. For instance, to get to one you had to assess that he was guilty of another first, like a prerequisite in college. If you could get a checkbox on the manslaughter charge, which for this level is not INTENDING to cause death - but DID - then you can get to the murder charge(s) and assess those. The sentencing will just incorporate the worst of the 3. And then, prior to his untimely demise, appeals forevuh.
That quick a verdict after having heard, and received copies of, 14 pages of deliberation instructions tells me where the motive was for the verdicts. There is no question in my mind - no matter what they say later through mouthpieces - but that it was self-preservation. On their way to 2nd degree murder, based on having eval'd the manslaughter charge, they should've been able to determine that the lesser of the 2 murder charges didn't apply. But they just decided to vote a straight ticket. It is horsehockey. I don't care if this guy was the most arrogant jerkwad around, this was a tribal sacrifice. And we haven't seen the proceedings to address all the colleagues that could've stopped or mitigated what went down. The fugly is going to go on for awhile.