TexasCHLforum.com

On Friday 1/22 I was summoned downtown for the privilege of jury duty. Now, being a former LEO I know my odds of being picked on a criminal jury are slim to none, and view this process as a major waste of my time. However, this time it was at least entertaining.

During voir doir the ADA was explaining the case that the selected jurors would hear was an aggravated assault case. The defendant is accused of stabbing a female.

For whatever reason the ADA started to explain when you are allowed to used deadly force in the State of Texas. The ADA states in open court " Under Texas law you may only use deadly force when it is used on you"... let that sink in a minute....

I am not the silent meek type, just because the ADA said it, don't make it so. I raised my hand and stated emphatically that is not what Texas law says.
Texas law states I must be in fear of my life. PERIOD. Granted the test is would a reasonable person given the same circumstance feel that they would have acted in the same manner.

She had previously used an example of a person hitting you in the face would not be justification for the use of deadly force. I told her that her example on the surface is true, But when I was 26 years old if you hit me in the face I would have tackled you, or struck you with my PR 24 baton.. At 56, I am not as fast, nor as strong, and I don't carry less than lethal with me. So, you hit me in the face now, I will pull my weapon and inform you that if you attempt to strike me again I will defend myself...

I really would like to know how she ended up as an ADA...

Wow!

So according to her one has to be shot or stabbed before responding with something in kind?

Am I right/wrong in my analysis?

Plus, many folks, particularly older folks, have died from a punch.

dac1842 wrote: For whatever reason the ADA started to explain when you are allowed to used deadly force in the State of Texas. The ADA states in open court " Under Texas law you may only use deadly force when it is used on you"... let that sink in a minute....

To quote my mother...."Oh, Dear Gussie..."

It's just not that simple. Can we hope that she was only making a generic statement oversimplifying for the general layperson on the potential Jury? I hope so, otherwise it can only be a willful ignorance.

Of course, it's worth remembering that as ADA, her metric is successful convictions -- that's how her job performance is measured.

But still...

I'm guessing that since you can discuss the voir dire process you witnessed, you were not selected...

dac1842 wrote:Texas law states I must be in fear of my life. PERIOD.

I really would like to know how she ended up as an ADA...

Many people use the phrase "in fear of my life", but this is not written in Texas law.
If you can provide the section in the penal code that states that, I will change my mind.

I am being flippant, but she probably went to law school, passed the bar exam and then got hired by the county.
The attorneys are given some latitude in what they say in their opening and closing statements, but what the ADA stated were not statements of the law.
At the end of the trial the judge will give instructions to the jury about the elements of the law.
IANAL

WildBill wrote:

dac1842 wrote:Texas law states I must be in fear of my life. PERIOD.

I really would like to know how she ended up as an ADA...

Many people use the phrase "in fear of my life", but this is not written in Texas law.

Obviously, we all know she was wrong in her statements on the use of force. I don't think some of you realize what she was actually doing though. I believe she knows exactly what the law is and has probably researched more case law on it than most of us combined. She should have done that just to prepare for the class.

But, voir dire questions are not usually examined as closely by the judges as they should be. Both sides know this and play a game they are also aware of. Things said in voir dire are not considered part of the trial, but they certainly influence the potential jury members. Everyone on that jury panel who does not know better now thinks the use of deadly force is not justified. This may be argued in trial, and the instructions will almost certainly include the actual law, but the first impression has been made.

WildBill wrote: Many people use the phrase "in fear of my life", but this is not written in Texas law.
If you can provide the section in the penal code that states that, I will change my mind.

I think they call it paraphrasing Or perhaps one my describe it as interpretation
In any case
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(2)(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

If I am using deadly force in the context above, would I not be doing so because I am in fear of my life?

So is "in fear of my live" a verbatim cite from the law? not that i can find.
Is it clearly what the law is stating? I believe so. , and so does every person i know and associate with that might be called to sit a jury.

All that said your point is spot on,, the words are NOT in the law.

I have had the experience of being on seven juries in Harris County....one capital murder, one murder, 3 aggravated assaults and 2 civil trials. I remember the Judges going off on Lawyers that try to explain "what the law is". The Judge says it his their job to explain the meaning of the law. The Judge doesn't always get it right either.

Guess you could have started quoting the Texas Penal Code.
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

( yes, I said penal!)

srothstein wrote:Obviously, we all know she was wrong in her statements on the use of force. I don't think some of you realize what she was actually doing though. I believe she knows exactly what the law is and has probably researched more case law on it than most of us combined. She should have done that just to prepare for the class.

But, voir dire questions are not usually examined as closely by the judges as they should be. Both sides know this and play a game they are also aware of. Things said in voir dire are not considered part of the trial, but they certainly influence the potential jury members. Everyone on that jury panel who does not know better now thinks the use of deadly force is not justified. This may be argued in trial, and the instructions will almost certainly include the actual law, but the first impression has been made.

May we all understand and inculcate this.

Thank you, Steve.

Skiprr wrote:

srothstein wrote:Obviously, we all know she was wrong in her statements on the use of force. I don't think some of you realize what she was actually doing though. I believe she knows exactly what the law is and has probably researched more case law on it than most of us combined. She should have done that just to prepare for the class.

But, voir dire questions are not usually examined as closely by the judges as they should be. Both sides know this and play a game they are also aware of. Things said in voir dire are not considered part of the trial, but they certainly influence the potential jury members. Everyone on that jury panel who does not know better now thinks the use of deadly force is not justified. This may be argued in trial, and the instructions will almost certainly include the actual law, but the first impression has been made.

May we all understand and inculcate this.

Thank you, Steve.

Now you done forced me to look this up:

to implant by repeated statement or admonition; teach persistently and earnestly (usually followed by upon or in): to inculcate virtue in the young. 2. to cause or influence (someone) to accept an idea or feeling (usually followed by with): Socrates inculcated his pupils with the love of truth.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inculcate Inculcate

Verb, transitive: to teach and impress by frequent repetitions or admonitions; to cause (something) to be learned by (someone) .

I rest my case.

You are supposed to pay attention.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-01-10

I've been told a case can be won or lost during jury selection. The lawyers are there to win the case. They start that process during jury selection. It's not about getting to the truth or justice, it's about winning the case and hoping justice is served in the end.

Steve nailed what the ADA was doing. She was working the jury before the final jury was selected.

mojo84 wrote:I've been told a case can be won or lost during jury selection. The lawyers are there to win the case. They start that process during jury selection. It's not about getting to the truth or justice, it's about winning the case and hoping justice is served in the end.

Steve nailed what the ADA was doing. She was working the jury before the final jury was selected.

In any case it's wonderful that the OP spoke-up. I wish I'd have been there to witness the reaction(s). I also wonder how quickly he was hustled-out of the courtroom after that!!!