Can the weapon I use for SD get me convicted?

[ELB]

One study with mock jurors seems to say so, in the (theoretical) case of a homeowner who shoots a burglar in his house.

And make sure your lawyer kicks the women off the jury -- they are more sexually biased and make decisions on appearences and stereotypes rather than facts. (THAT should get this thread rollin'! ) And this holds whether you are a male or female defendent.

Also, cops as jurors act on stereotypes nearly as badly as women.

On a perhaps slightly less inflammatory note, this study does not say complimentary things about the critical thinking skills of introductory psychology students at Trinity Univ and Alamo Community College in San Antonio.

(This, btw, is the major flaw of the study -- the pool of mock jurors does not resemble the likely Texas jury pool population. Intro psych students seem to be the perennial population for psychology studies).

Saw it at Dave Hardy's blog, Of Arms and the Law]

Link to a summary of the study. I didn't see a link to the actual study, but I may have overlooked it.
[url=http://www.astcweb.org/public/publicati ... ed-Citizen]Will It Hurt Me in Court? Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen

The scenario: Homeowner hears noise at night, arms himself, finds unarmed burglar in house stealing VCR. Burglar theatens to kill homeowner, homeowner shoots burglar twice, killing him. Homeowner varies between male and female, and using AR-15, Mini-14, SD shotgun, bird hunting shotgun, Glock 19, and snubbie. DA argues 2nd degree murder, defense argues Castle Doctrine.

Selected findings (not quotes, just my summary):

- Women more likely to convict the homeowner, gave longer sentences, and gave harshest sentences to women who used an AR-15. Women who used the AR-15 were convicted 75% of the time.

- Women who used a rifle were more harshly judged by both men and women.

Another scenario where a policeman responds to a robbery and mistakenly shoots innocents, thinking they are the robbers. The scenario is presented to police officers, varying the sex of the officer and the weapon used (AR-15 or Glock) Interestingly, the male police officers are harshest on male officers who used an AR-15 and women officers who used a Glock service pistol. Not enough female officers participated to get a statistically significant result.

[philip964]

I thought in Texas, an unarmed burglar in a homeowners house could be shot, without charges being filed, as long as it was at night, and he was a burglar not someone the homeowner invited in. Am I wrong?

[ELB]

I thought in Texas, an unarmed burglar in a homeowners house could be shot, without charges being filed, as long as it was at night, and he was a burglar not someone the homeowner invited in. Am I wrong?

Under the law, your use of force or deadly force against someone who has unlawfully and with force entered your house is presumed reasonable (with a couple other qualifications). That doesn't mean you can't be charged, just makes it more unlikely (remember the iterations of the MPA and a certain Houston DA?) Certainly in Texas as a whole, the trend is to not charge the homeowner in your standard random burglar-gets-shot incident.

Also, remember, this is a study, so if they no-billed the homeowner right off the bat there wouldn't be any questions to present to the mock jury participants.

[bigred90gt]

Inside your home, time of day is irrelevant.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[glbedd53]

I thought cops were never on a jury

[Bart]

There are exceptions, but the guideline I heard is you want a jury trial if your defense is emotional, and you want a bench trial if your defense is based on the law. The guideline assumes the judge is competent and isn't corrupt, so it holds true in some places more than others.

IANAL

[jbirds1210]

Cops serve on juries all the time...I have heard of countless examples. I am a cop and I can honestly say, If I was on trial, I would want someone like me on the jury. Fairness is looking just as hard for the right as for the wrong.

Jason

[srothstein]

Also, cops as jurors act on stereotypes nearly as badly as women.

Cops do NOT stereotype. We just have the knowledge of what the cop on the stand is trying to say and we know that cops are all honest and would never make an arrest that the bad guy was not guilty. This is not stereotyping but experience and professional judgment.

Honestly, if you find a cop in the jury pool, you want to strike him pretty fast, if you can. Most of them think they know the law and look at how well the case is constructed, as well as trying to guess what the cop was really thinking/saying in his report. If your defense is based on the law, and it is a popular law (shooting burglars for example), a cop on the jury might be a good thing. If you defense is based on emotion, get rid of him/her fast.

My experience with jury duty is that I usually get struck during voir dire. In Bexar County, I got struck from an assault case when the DA asked if we agreed all he had to prove was that the one person hit the other and I said no. He needed to prove the level of injury also, and might need to prove that the defense of consent was not there if raised. In Caldwell County I usually get struck when they ask if I know anyone involved in the case and I answer that I know the DA and the cops testifying. There may be a few I don't know now, but with only about 100 cops in the county, I probably know 95 of them. The funny thing is my wife has been on three juries in Caldwell County in the 7 years we have lived here.

An interesting side note is that in federal court, having a family member who is a cop is an automatic excuse. You just mail the form back in and you are done. My mother-in-law was excused from a jury in Austin that way.

[C-dub]

Well, there was that one guy convicted because he used a 10mm with hollow point rounds. Someone named McDonald I think. No, not Ronald either.

He wasn't exactly convicted because of what he carried, but that's the way the prosecutor presented the case and other vital information was not allowed.

EDIT: I just remembered, Harold Fish is the guys name.

[ELB]

Also, cops as jurors act on stereotypes nearly as badly as women.

Cops do NOT stereotype. We just have the knowledge of what the cop on the stand is trying to say and we know that cops are all honest and would never make an arrest that the bad guy was not guilty. This is not stereotyping but experience and professional judgment.

Heh. I was being just a little provocative to try to get some talk going....

... In Caldwell County I usually get struck when they ask if I know anyone involved in the case and I answer that I know the DA and the cops testifying. ...

In the very small county I grew up in, I was in a jury pool on a venued case where the out-of-town lawyers asked if anyone knew anyone else in the pool or in the courtroom. They were a bit shocked to find out that the only ones in the courtroom that didn't know each other were the out-of-town lawyers. The judge (long time friend of my family) told them if they wanted 12 people who did not know him or each other, he was going to have to canvass most of the county's residents and he really did not want to do that. The lawyers decided they could live it.

Comment to all: I don't think the study contemplated that cops would or would not be on a jury; it was aimed at trying to assess cop's attitudes towards the type of weapon used.

[Hoi Polloi]

Very interesting findings! Thanks for posting this!

[OldCannon]

Well, there was that one guy convicted because he used a 10mm with hollow point rounds. Someone named McDonald I think. No, not Ronald either.

He wasn't exactly convicted because of what he carried, but that's the way the prosecutor presented the case and other vital information was not allowed.

EDIT: I just remembered, Harold Fish is the guys name.

Thanks to the wisdom of the Arizona legislation and legal system, Harold is no longer a convicted felon. His story has been a harrowing one of justice VERY wrongly served, and then ultimately corrected. I was one of the donors to his legal support fund.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/articl ... 1b916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HankB]

I thought cops were never on a jury

Earlier this year I served as a juror (traffic case) in my town, a suburb of Austin, TX. In the jury pool was an Austin cop. He showed up in full uniform. The defendent struck him immediately, though he clearly was eligible to serve.

[magillapd]

Like the original poster mentioned, in Texas the chance of this getting past the grand jury is slim. Also, I agree that due to the "jury" being college students in their first year is skewed. Get a mock jury of regular normal folks and I bet you'd have a much different outcome.

On a side note; if the justice system didn't fail us daily there would be less shootings to contend with. What I mean by this is too many criminals are getting slapped on the wrist instead of being thrown in jail and kept there where they belong.

[OldCannon]

On a side note; if the justice system didn't fail us daily there would be less shootings to contend with. What I mean by this is too many criminals are getting slapped on the wrist instead of being thrown in jail and kept there where they belong.

I had a friend sum it up in an interesting way: It's a good thing we put all those pot smokers in jail, so that the alcoholics have more room to drive on the road