Judge Denies Motion For Aquital in Chuavin Trial

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Multimedia | Judge Denies Motion For Aquital in Chuavin Trial

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #417822
      Snort McDork
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,209

      I'm Snort McDork and I approved this message.

      "I like Birdy Num-Nums"

      If you come for Nina Turner, Your ish better be airtight like Tupperware" -Rashida Talib

    • #417844
      soryang
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,839

      this is a pro forma motion. reasonable doubt isn’t the standard for this motion. if there is any evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably find the elements of the offense(s) are satisfied, the motion fails. Was the motion untimely?

      • #417855
        HassleCat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 8,339

        Most people are surprised when the defense attorney moves for dismissal. Sometimes they skip it, perhaps because they feel it might confuse or upset the jurors. I had jury duty last month, and the defense attorney did not move for dismissal. The courtroom drama TV shows generally skip this detail. It’s too bad the public gets its impression of trials from television dramas, with attorneys badgering witnesses, Perry Mason leaning over the rail of the witness stand as he intimidates the witness, all kinds of wild speculation admitted as evidence, etc.

        • #417856
          soryang
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,839

          I never made this motion in front of the jury, it’s not for them to hear. they are excused for this.

    • #417899
      Paul H Mentzer
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 15

      In a motion to dismiss, the Judge must ASSUME all facts shown in court in favor of conviction to be true and even then the defendant would be ruled NOT Guilty.  If there is any facts that a fact finder must find Such finding of fact is reserved to the fact finder (in jury trial the finder of facts is the Jury, the Judge only finds what is the law).

      In most cases by the end of the trial the dispute as to facts are clear, i.e. did the officer follow correct procedure or did he use excessive force?  Thus in most cases both sides go straight into closing arguments skipping the Motion to Dismiss.

      On the other hand, I have had trials where by the end of testimony it was clear there was no disputes as to the facts, the only issue was one of law, did the act of the defendant break the law? In one case the evidence was so clear the Judge dismissed the case for given all facts alleged by the Prosecution my client broke no law (it was a housing case where someone ran into my client’s home while running away from the Police and while running through my client’s house dropped a bag of drugs and her landlord wanted to evict her for the drugs.  It was clear  by the end of the trial who dropped the drugs and why and that the person running had just pick my Client’s home for the door was open for my client was outside trying to enjoy the weather.  Thus the Judge dismissed the case, there was no evidence that my client knew the person running from the Police or that that person was a drug dealer or even if my client even knew the person running from the Police).

      As a general rule, it is rare to win a dismissal on such a motion, but not unheard of as shown above, but such a motion is based on an assumption that all facts in favor of conviction are true and as such in most cases difficult to show.

       

    • #418190
      Snort McDork
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,209

      Nice to know now that we have a legal Eagle among us for further clarity on matters of law. I’ll know now where to direct my law questions should they come up.

      I'm Snort McDork and I approved this message.

      "I like Birdy Num-Nums"

      If you come for Nina Turner, Your ish better be airtight like Tupperware" -Rashida Talib

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.