Come on, he was clearly guilty. It was so obvious. The evidence was overwhelming. All their defences were such a stretch they were almost comical. You could find a way to refute any evidence. Like if there was CCTV footage of him committing the murder, you could argue it was someone else wearing a mask to look like him. But there's a thing called reasonable doubt. In real life any jury would've convicted him in a heartbeat.
shareHe was charged with first degree murder. I always wondered if it really was premeditated, we don't know what happened in the moments before the killing. Did the father provoke or threaten him? Did he feel he was in danger
shareIf you look at the entire picture - he was hit by his father - then goes out and buys the murder weapon - then just before he kills the father - he says he is going to kill the father. In most jurisdictions - that would be premeditation. Premeditation doesn't have take place minutes or hours or days before - it can take place seconds before the crime. If he was able to think out what he was going to do - then did it - that is premeditation.
User Error Please Try Again
Part of the entire picture is he was hit by his father most of his life and
he also was in trouble before for fighting with a knife
He bought a knife that possibly cost him a lot of money shows it to his friends then uses it to stab his father and leaves it in the body but remembers to turn off the lights
Did he buy that weapon with the intent of killing his father or was there another reason? We do know that he has switchblades in the past.
Did he do it because the father hit him 4 hours earlier or did he do it because he that the father was about to hit him again? Maybe the father provoke him? Something was going on between them when the father was killed
He bought a knife that possibly cost him a lot of money shows it to his friends then uses it to stab his father and leaves it in the body but remembers to turn off the lights
So this street smart kid buys this knife that cost him a lot and then carelessly looses this large knife in a hole in his clothing and doesn't notice it? OR - In the heat of the murder - he left it in his father and/or didn't want to be caught carrying a bloody knife around after the murder.
The fact is - abused people do have breaking points. If they get hit enough - they eventually hit back
Self defense has to be brought up by the defense. They can't just bring it up out of no where. They never mentioned it or used it a legal defense. Does that mean they weren't doing their job? No. If they didn't think it was self defense then they shouldn't use it. Now you have the jury trying to determine if it was self defense- that's ridiculous. That is out of their scope. How would you feel if a jury decided to do what they wanted to do - disobey court instructions - break court rules - and do that to convict someone? The rules are there for a reason. Many of these angles or theories could have been brought up in pre-trial hearings and ruled against for any number of reasons.
If the son is claiming he was at the movies - he can't claim self-defense and thus the jury shouldn't even bring that into question. They can't act as the defense - they have to use the evidence that was submitted or testified about.
User Error Please Try Again
"Reasonable" doubt. Not doubt in general. You have made false equivalencies. Next.
shareSimply stating that a person in a mask could possibly have been responsible is not a reasonable doubt and on its own could not sway a jury.
Plus the purpose of a jury is not to decide if the prosecution's case and the way that they present the evidence is plausible. It is to determine if the case made by the jury is the truth beyond reasonable doubt.
In this movie it is made quite clear that the jury is having to do the defense attorney's job for them in challenging the presumption that the evidence and the conclusions drawn for them are incontrovertible.
Like the guy said. False equivalency. Feeble attempt. Nae luck.