Daunte Wright shooting Brooklyn MN

[blues]

As for your example, if I was acquitted of murder, does it matter whether it was for 1st degree or 2nd or whatever?
If I was acquitted of 1st degree, shouldn't I be tried for 2nd or other lesser charges or I couldn't be charged of murder at any degree once I'm acquitted at any charged degree?
That goes back to the original question again.

This is the last reply I have for you.

The facts of the murder are the facts of the murder...as presented to judge and jury. If the elements for a conviction under the law for first degree murder are not met, they may be under 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter or a lesser charge brought in the indictment or charging documents.

What the jury can't do is take the facts of the case and decide to punish the defendant because he did something but they haven't been provided with a relevant statute to try him over.

And with that, I hand the baton over.

[blues]

What's that???

I'll see what comes up with search.

If you click the link I provided, you'll have more than enough to keep you busy. I did your work for you.

[Mystery]

This is the last reply I have for you.

The facts of the murder are the facts of the murder...as presented to judge and jury. If the elements for a conviction under the law for first degree murder are not met, they may be under 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter or a lesser charge brought in the indictment or charging documents.

What the jury can't do is take the facts of the case and decide to punish the defendant because he did something but they haven't been provided with a relevant statute to try him over.

And with that, I hand the baton over.

Thank you. I'll read more on the topic.
It's just my simple mind that tells not to let a criminal go free just because prosecuting team decided to get the maximum sentence possible.

[Mystery]

...
The system you’re proposing is exactly what the double jeopardy clause was meant to prevent. Exactly as someone mentioned above, with a system like you’re proposing the government could constantly retry you with its unlimited resources and eventually you’d go bankrupt and be unable to afford the legal representation you’d like to have.

Yes that'll be bad if it goes on for decades.
I was thinking in terms of charging all at once and deciding right there instead of I'll find something later if this is not proved mentality.
You know like, jury finds not guilty on 1st degree, jury finds not guilty on 2nd degree, jury finds not guilty on 3rd degree, ..., jury finds guilty on involuntary manslaughter at the same trial.

The "issue" that you seem concerned with is that sometimes the guilty are not punished, that sometimes the law doesn't apply as written to objectionable actions, and that you don't feel justice has been done. Is that about right?

Welcome to reality. I mean, really......there's not much else to say. Maybe a lawsuit against your High School Civics teacher for fraud?

Yes, you got it.
I feel that sometimes criminal get away just because they were over charged and not enough to prove it.
Had they charged the person with one degree lesser, it'd most probably be proven.

[trailrunner]

I feel that sometimes criminal get away just because they were over charged and not enough to prove it.
Had they charged the person with one degree lesser, it'd most probably be proven.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a prosecutor, but I have confidence that in these cases they put a lot of thought in to their decisions. They weigh the evidence. They weigh the circumstances, the details, and the intent of the parties. They weigh each and every word of any charge they consider bringing against a person. They weigh previous cases, the judge, the potential jury pool, the witnesses, and the reality of the real world, to come up with a decision. I'd also point out that the gradations between differing degrees of murder and manslaughter are not always obvious, and it must also be kept in mind that when the laws themselves were written, they were written in an attempt to be general enough for all future cases, not knowing what the future might look like.

And yes, sometimes a guilty person gets away with a crime. Our judicial system was based on erring on the side of letting a guilty person going free, rather than convicting an innocent person.

[DDTSGM]

Doesn't that let the charged officer get away free if it's not proved?
I mean, I see officers charged with 1st, 2nd degree etc... and they are not convicted for anything.
I find it as a big loop hole if that's true.
Not only for officers charged but any civilian that's charged with higher crime and freed.
Basically, a criminal will be free depending upon what he's charged with rather than what he did.
Sounds little Homer Simpson to me.

If they are not convicted of higher crimes, shouldn't they get lesser punishment?
For example, if I kill someone and I get charged with 1st degree murder and jury acquits me for whatever reason (technicalities, wrong trial...), I shouldn't go free instead I should be in trial for whatever is next in the line and put in jail, not free.
I don't know if that's the process but a suspect charged with a crime shouldn't go free just because prosecuting team decided to over charge.
Shouldn't they have something like, this person is charged with 1st degree murder and all other lesser murder charges like 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter... and let jury decide where they convict instead of either convict this person of 1st degree or let this criminal go free.
If jury truly wants to set the suspect free, they'll not convict that person on any of the lesser charges as well.
Jury gets no other option other than either convict as charged or let the criminal go free. Enlighten me.

I'm not sure I'm tracking with you.

After seeing the video, hearing her announce TASER, do you think her intent was to shoot this guy? Let's focus on this:

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

Focus on this portion: AND consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm

From the video it is apparent that she intended to TASE the guy which was justified under the circumstances. Did she consciously draw her firearm? These mistakes, called slip and capture errors, while not common, have occurred in numerous circumstance with the TASER, as has been previously discussed.

What the folks are saying is her actions don't necessarily fit the definitions of a CRIMINAL act. The DA, wanting to keep his job and also probably to keep the lid from blowing off worse than it already has, charged with the CRIMINAL ACT that came as close as he could get given the facts.

Look at it this way, grandma, going the speed limit runs a red light, strikes a car and seriously injures or kills someone. Grandma isn't impaired, her attention was distracted momentarily by a kid who looked as if he was going to walk into the crosswalk in front of her. Does grandma go to prison? No. There are civil remedies to such actions/accidents.

On the other hand if grandma has a BAC of .12 at the time of the accident, she has created a situation where her conscious actions (drinking and then driving) led to the accident and she would fit the definition of the Minnesota Statute, manslaughter in the second.

So, point being, the officer's actions weren't criminal in intent, and the redress for this guy's death lies in civil action.

Make sense?

[HCM]

If we allowed perpetual charging and retrial of people for crimes we can't prove they committed (that's what an acquittal is). Then what's to stop us from creating a tiered system of charges so we can keep people we don't want free in jail perpetually? Nothing.

Your post was spot on but it's worth noting this ^^^^ is basically what the various Soros funded Socialist DA's are doing by perpetually re-investigating closed Officer involved shooting cases without any new evidence.

[RevolverRob]

Your post was spot on but it's worth noting this ^^^^ is basically what the various Soros funded Socialist DA's are doing by perpetually re-investigating closed Officer involved shooting cases without any new evidence.

Yea, this is an unfortunate side effect, I think, of allowing partisanship to enter into judicial positions via elections. I am firmly opposed to allowing any candidates for judicial positions being allowed to be party affiliated. And I think if there was a place for substantial campaign finance reform and absolute transparency, it's when people are running for elected judicial positions.

But if wishes were money, I'd have enough to buy a private island some place and run it how I wanted.

[Oldherkpilot]

Thanks for saving me from the scorched earth reply I was preparing...

You old softie!😁

[ssb]

Not to defend overcharging (because I don’t like the practice at all, even though I’m aware that it happens), but to correct an odd misconception up thread...

Jurors are instructed on lesser included offenses at trial. I’m not required to indict every lesser charge, and I typically do not as for most crimes it’s not an up-or-down vote for the jury (for example, an aggravated robbery may have lessers of aggravated assault, simple robbery, theft, assault, and the various attempts and facilitations of those offenses - the jury is given the option to convict on any of those if they find insufficient proof for the indicted offense. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.). Tactically, I don’t want to signal to a jury that I have indecision on what they ought to convict on, which is the practical reason why I would typically not charge lessers. I may, however, indict different theories of a charge (example - for aggravated assault I may charge both the serious bodily injury prong and the use of a deadly weapon prong, to hopefully cover me if the jury decides I didn’t prove serious bodily injury).

In a situation like this case, it’s not like I get to rub my hands together, cackle nefariously, charge my cop buddy with a murder I know I can’t prove to appease the mob, and then never get the chance to have the jury convict on what the charge actually ought to be in order to save him from that risk. They’re gonna see instructions for manslaughter anyway. Double jeopardy and certain rules of criminal procedure require me to indict everything I’ve got out of a “transaction” - I don’t get to wait and see what happens on one possible charge from a given event before indicting on the others. I’ve got to bring everything I’ve got on one indictment.

I’m not a lawyer in Minnesota so perhaps they do things different there with regard to lesser included offenses. If so, I’d find that a little strange.

I’ll not wade into the should or shouldn’t have charged her debate because I’m unfamiliar with MN law and its definitions of what a conscious act is. I will say that in my jurisdiction, I can see a basis for a homicide charge (it’s a question of what that charge ought to be). Statutes typically define certain terms, and case law explains those definitions and gives us factual scenarios where such a thing was/was not met. Unfortunately, the definitions are often not identical to their plain English or colloquial definitions.