|
tazzygirl -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/14/2012 7:46:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raiikun
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
You seem to enjoy telling people how wrong they are, when all they do is ask question. You assume I had my mind made up on the previous topic.
No assumption. You asserted Stieh didn't apply because there were witnesses which is factually incorrect as proven by Fowler. (Although I see what you're trying to do, by wording it such a way you can back off the assertion. I am not fooled.)
No, actually, you are easily fooled, by your own assumptions. If you look back at the case, I pulled up the wrong one. But since you have a hard on for that case.. lets look at it.
quote:
In Fowler v. State,492 So.2d 1344, 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986),1 the First District reversed a murder conviction because "the defendant's hypothesis that the shooting was purely accidental and in self-defense has not been overcome." As in the present case, no eyewitnesses saw the shooting or the events preceding it, and the defendant fled after the shooting. In fact, in Fowler, the defendant fled the jurisdiction. In discussing whether the State met its burden to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court stated, "Evidence that leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury." Id. at 1348.
This wasnt accidental.
quote:
Here, the State argues that evidence of Fowler's flight after the shooting shows consciousness of guilt and is inconsistent with his theory that he acted in self-defense. The State cites Sims v. State,681 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1996), to support its argument that evidence of the defendant's flight after a shooting is sufficient to rebut evidence of self-defense. In Sims, the defendant shot a law enforcement officer, threw the gun in a river, and arrived by bus four days later in California. In addition to the defendant's actions after the shooting, however, the court noted that the physical evidence, as testified to by the firearms expert and medical examiner, was inconsistent with the defendant's version of events. Further, the defendant's version of events was inconsistent with the testimony of three other witnesses. Id. at 1116. Sims is distinguishable from the present case because here, the evidence was not inconsistent with Fowler's version of events.
Seems the DNA evidence will be strongly used.
quote:
While flight can evidence consciousness of guilt, it is not inconsistent with Fowler's hypothesis that he fled because he was panicked, scared, and not using good judgment. In Fowler, the court stated as follows:
We do not doubt that the evidence adduced by the state, particularly the evidence as to Fowler's actions after the shooting, casts considerable suspicion upon him. But mere "suspicion" is not enough. When the state presents circumstantial evidence of a particular fact which is arguably consistent with the defendant's story, then the fact is simply not probative of the defendant's guilt.
Here, in opposing Fowler's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence, the prosecutor relied on (1) the testimony of Calvin Standifer and (2) Fowler's behavior after the shooting. With respect to Standifer's testimony, nothing in his testimony contradicts the defense evidence that Fowler acted in self-defense. Standifer testified that he was watching television when he heard the gunshot and that he immediately went to the window and saw Dunbar falling backward. The State contends that if Fowler's version of events is correct, then when Standifer went to the window he would have seen Dunbar falling into Fowler before falling backwards to the ground. First, although Standifer acknowledged that he jumped up immediately, nothing reflects how far Standifer's chair was from the window or how long it took him to get to the window. Fowler's testimony established that the events all happened very quickly, and a reasonable explanation as to what Standifer saw is that by the time he got up and went to the window, Dunbar had already fallen against Fowler and was falling backwards to the ground.
Much of the evidence in this case will center around the phone call with 911 and evidence gathered after the shooting.
Unlike Fowler, the states case isnt built around actions by the accused after the fact.
quote:
Furthermore, the physical evidence is consistent with Fowler's explanation that Dunbar fell against him before falling to the ground. The FDLE serologist testified that the blood stains on Fowler's shirt matched the DNA profile of Dunbar's blood sample. Leroy Parker, a supervisor for the FDLE and an expert in the field of bloodstain pattern analysis, testified that all of the blood stains on Fowler's t-shirt were contact stains and that they were not "blow back" stains. Thus, the physical evidence supports Fowler's testimony that Dunbar fell against him, and then Dunbar fell to the ground. Standifer's testimony that he only saw Dunbar falling backward does not contradict Fowler's testimony and the physical evidence.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=5&xmldoc=20061629921So2d708_11513.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7
It goes on and on. Would seem to me they would have to look at more than just a citation where it was used in another case. Rather, theyw ould have to look at the similarities and differences between the cases to determine if it is applicable at all.
The bolded part above will determine if its applicable at all.
|
|
|
|
