searchinGirl
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 1,416
my prediction is there will be two forensic pathologists dueling it out over the facts... IMO
"Therefore, in order for you to find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things, that the defendant did not act in self-defense, or failing in this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the deceased."
So, how do you think the state can prove it wasn't self-defense?...IMO this is the weakness in prosecuting TM because I don't believe there is evidence he provoked the fight... and maybe I'm wrong but I don't think he will be considered the aggressor in this situation...
"One enters a fight voluntarily if one uses toward one’s opponent abusive language, which, considering all of the circumstances, is calculated and intended to provoke a fight. If the defendant voluntarily and without provocation entered the fight, the defendant would be considered the aggressor unless the defendant thereafter attempted to abandon the fight and gave notice to the deceased that the defendant was doing so."...
Now, I can see a case here for Molly being the aggressor/provoking the fight but TM?...however, it does seem to me that certain elements of the crime were committed by one or the other making it difficult to see the whole picture when it comes to evaluating each one's individual guilt...I wonder how are they going to present this? makes me think one trial, separate juries but IDK...
"If the state fails to prove either that the defendant did not act in self-defense or was the aggressor, with intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm, you may not convict the defendant of second degree murder, but you may convict the defendant of voluntary manslaughter if the state proves that the defendant was simply the aggressor without murderous intent in bringing on the fight in which the deceased was killed, or that the defendant used excessive force."
the jury instructions make clear the state has to prove the defendant did not act in self defense... the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt...I'm still thinking the autopsy report is everything...in my ever grateful opinion... https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_in...efense-felony/