re: Will Smith Murder Trial-Guilty of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter

quote:

---

nny Monteverde ?@DCMonteverde 1m1 minute ago

This is not Brueggeman's first high-profile case. He was also the lead detective in the 2014 Bourbon Street mass shooting.

---

quote:

---

I dont think so. Not positive though

---

if not, I think this is why Hayes has to take the stand

he is the only person that can testify that smith said he was going for a gun

and that is his strongest case for self defense

quote:

---

Danny Monteverde ?@DCMonteverde 38s38 seconds ago

ADA Rodrigue asking if Brueggeman sent fellow detectives to search for surveillance video. He says he did.

---

Ramon Vargas isn't updating. Maybe ther was a long line at the pisser or his battery died.

For the team prosecutioners,

What has the state done to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hayes did not have an imminent threat on his life?


Not being a dick, just asking. I have given my reasons for thinking they havent

He left follow simeonton whateve his name is

quote:

---

Danny Monteverde ?@DCMonteverde 2m2 minutes ago

Some of us could see the screen at first, but then Judge Buras asked for the TV, on a rolling cart, to be angled more toward the jury.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Danny Monteverde ?@DCMonteverde 2m2 minutes ago

Brueggeman begins narrating a video the jury will watch. Explaining the NOPD item number that starts the video.

---

quote:

---

What has the state done to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hayes did not have an imminent threat on his life?

---

i dont really have a dog in this fight, if anything hernandez is the biggest problem

the issue is level of threat that a reasonable person armed with a firearm would perceive from two individuals that appear to be unarmed

Hayes is as big or bigger than smith and oneal is bigger than hernandez, so its more difficult for them to argue that they perceived their lives to be threatened based on a physical fight

the other issue is that there is testimony that smith's wife was able to calm him down and that he wasnt doing anything at the time he was shot, so if an individual (remember we're talking about smith here, not hernandez), appears to no longer be a threat you cant then shoot them because they may have been a threat earlier (this is like shooting a fleeing burglar while he's running down the street, he may have scared you in your house, but once hes running away you dont get to shoot him in the back)

this is why i believe hayes has to take the stand, he needs to testify that smith did or said something RIGHT BEFORE he pulled the trigger that caused him to fear for his life


but even if smith did see hayes' gun and say "oh I have one too," hayes' problem is that he was the first to bring the gun to the confrontation, and the jury will likely receive a jury instruction stating that he was the one that raised the level of force and became the major aggressor if you will, so at that point, he's not allowed to raise self defense if smith was only trying to arm himself to match hayes' level of force (a gun)

I am confused, is it not the state's job to prove that he killed the victim and provide circumstances for how it happened?

I thought the defense is the one that is going to have to prove the self-defense part. That is what makes the most sense.

Very simplified version, yes, but to the point, if you want to claim self-defense, the burden is on you to prove it.

Fun Bunch and tLSU have stated it earlier today in this thread.