On the left of my screen you have Darren Wilson, a six-year veteran of the force who has no disciplinary actions on his record with the department. On the right you have an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown who prior to being shot robbed a convenient store for a box of swishers. One witness jumped at the opportunity to involve himself in the case. From what I understand many citizens even recorded some of the scene on their phones. However this evidence may be precluded based on its probative value being outweighed based upon its prejudicial effect. Perhaps some evidence may even be irrelevant. Regardless I foresee a lengthy investigation because of the inconsistencies in the facts between the parties. There will certainly be a USC Title 42 Section 1983 deprivation of liberty law suite. Will Darren Wilson have to go to trial? Will the district attorney charge him with Murder? Manslaughter? Voluntary or Involuntary ? Here if you made it this far let me explain it to you so you get it all the way. The juries going to be asked to consider facts presented to it and the court will apply rules to making and interpretation of those questions. Let begin. Common Law Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is proven four ways: 1) intent to kill, 2) intend to inflict great bodily injury, 3) depraved heart killings, and 4) felony murder. Felony murder is also know If you have a felony murder issue, prove up the underlying felony such as Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping or Sodomy. Felony murder means the murder occurred in the coarse of a felony. Cleary, based on these facts we are not in the scope of felony murder. In fact it was Mr. Brown who contemporaneously committed a felony. The first issue is whether Officer Wilson intended on killing Mr. Brown? I wont drag this out but think for a second. The officer initiated contact with person because he was obstructing a road way. Brown just robbed a store for swishers. The cop says he got rushed for his gun. I am guessing that Brown was very excited and had a lot of adrenaline pumping because the high stress factor of strong arming a liquor store. I cannot say without more facts whether the Officer had the requisite mens-rea for form the premeditated and deliberate intent required for that rule. Depending on whether at some point in the fact pattern the tables turned and Brown could have been apprehended with less force than the Officer required to subdue him then we may find that Wilson may have intended to inflict great bodily harm to Brown. A question of fact reserved for the trier of fact (jury will be asked to consider various options). I need not speculate at this time. I find more facts are required for a detailed analysis. A depraved heart killing means reckless or callous disregard for human life. If the defendant shows or demonstrated a behavior that falls outside the usual standard of care that a reasonably prudent Officer in the same or similar circumstances would have endeavored to make. Again the facts have not been established to make that decision. We need to ask more questions. We have already set aside Felony murder. Next we can establish whether it is first degree or second degree. First degree murder is the intentional killing with malice aforethought, premeditation and deliberation. (here do not spend all day on defining or explaining premeditation or deliberation – it either was premeditated and deliberate (lying in wait, planned, thought out etc.) or it wasn’t – address the issue and conclude and move on). All murders that are not first degree are second degree unless mitigated down to some form of manslaughter. So what if it is not Murder? Can Officer Wilson be charged with manslaughter? There are two types of manslaughter (Voluntary and Involuntary) Voluntary Manslaughter: is a killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation and insufficient cooling time. Under these facts when Officer Wilson states Brown reached for his weapon and became combative. Other witness are testifying to the contrary and are stating that Brown had his hands up. When was the line drawn? Again at some point did the tables turn? Did Brown surrendering the heat of the moment provide an adequate cooling off period? Those are questions that require a further examination of the facts. It seems Officer Wilson could have been provoked. It could very well also seem that Brown putting his hands up in the air would make a reasonably prudent officer stop their use of force and effect an arrest if they have sufficient probable cause. The Jury will deliberate. If the jury does not find for Voluntary Manslaughter then it may look to involuntary manslaughter. A killing is involuntary manslaughter if it was committed with criminal negligence or during the commission of an unlawful act. The question that needs to be asked is whether Officer Wilson acted outside of scope of what an reasonable Officer in the same or similar circumstances would do? This is an objective test. Looking at the proportionality in height, weight, stature, and demeanor it would be difficult to argue that Officer Wilson may not have been able to overcome 65 Michael Brown. If Officer Wilson felt scared for his life or the lives of others in the event that Brown subdued him and removed his firearm and used it in public then we might be dealing with an entirely different news story. So what about Justifiable Homicide. A homicide can only be justified if there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or well-being of another. To rule a justifiable homicide, one must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the suspect intended to commit violence. A homicide in this instance is blameless and[1] distinct from the less stringent criteria authorizing deadly force in stand your ground rulings. So now you know the basic framework of the rules. Remember each court will have its own laws and jurisdiction. So some of the elements may sound differently or may require additional questions of fact or law. That will be for the Jury and Judge to decide respectively. But for now, you guys can start looking at it through your own legal microscope. Hope you enjoyed.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 21:08:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015