GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #6

[jjenny]

His wife and kids are the victims. And as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that driving lesson didn't happen.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

We don't know what happened that night. We can't determine if the defendants are guilty of anything until we know. The Meyers' lies have interfered with the police investigation and have made it near-impossible to figure out what really happened.

It's pretty clear to me what happened. Nowsch and Andrews didn't like being followed so Nowsch fired on the Buick. When the Buick left and went home they followed. Then Nowsch opened fired on a retreating Brandon and an unarmed Tammy causing her death.

JMO.

 

[sonjay]

It's pretty clear to me what happened. Nowsch and Andrews didn't like being followed so Nowsch fired on the Buick. When the Buick left and went home they followed. Then Nowsch opened fired on a retreating Brandon and an unarmed Tammy causing her death.

JMO.

It's pretty clear to me what happened. TM, BM & KM hated EN and decided to teach him a lesson. They took BM's gun and went to the park where EN hangs out. They pointed the gun at him, and he fled. They gave chase. He fired his own gun to stop the pursuit. They broke off the chase only when he fired back. It's a good thing he had a gun with him, or they would have killed him.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

RM really was ingenious in contacting the media even before he got home from California. He got out in front of this thing and got the driving lesson and road rage story out there right away, and got his wife and kids portrayed as victims in the media before anyone could actually figure out what happened.

I have to admire the man. He knew what he was doing.

I don't think one is exclusive of the other. I don't see anyone having a clear shirt here. Even if the Meyers were in the process of trying to kill someone when their plans went awry, that would not also preclude them from being victims.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

It's pretty clear to me what happened. TM, BM & KM hated EN and decided to teach him a lesson. They took BM's gun and went to the park where EN hangs out. They pointed the gun at him, and he fled. They gave chase. He fired his own gun to stop the pursuit. They broke off the chase only when he fired back. It's a good thing he had a gun with him, or they would have killed him.

I don't know if anyone hated Nowsch. We only have evidence of him firing a gun when the Buick was following him and Andrews. Do we know for sure that Brandon pointed his gun at them? I don't. Firing a gun at someone who is following in another car is not right IMO.

When the Buick went home and Nowsch and Andrews went there also, I see that as them pursuing Brandon and Tammy. They are the aggressors and the murderers. JMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

We don't know what happened that night. We can't determine if the defendants are guilty of anything until we know. The Meyers' lies have interfered with the police investigation and have made it near-impossible to figure out what really happened.

I think probabilistically speaking that unless there's some earth-shattering reveal, EN and possibly Andrews will be found guilty of something and that something will not be minor.

 

[sonjay]

I think probabilistically speaking that unless there's some earth-shattering reveal, EN and possibly Andrews will be found guilty of something and that something will not be minor.

Possibly voluntary manslaughter. IMO, also possibly acquittal or hung jury. The Claus Bros. strike me as pretty competent attorneys, and the Meyerses have given them lots of reasonable doubt to work with.

 

[SeeAlice]

RM really was ingenious in contacting the media even before he got home from California. He got out in front of this thing and got the driving lesson and road rage story out there right away, and got his wife and kids portrayed as victims in the media before anyone could actually figure out what happened.

I have to admire the man. He knew what he was doing.

DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think probabilistically speaking that unless there's some earth-shattering reveal, EN and possibly Andrews will be found guilty of something and that something will not be minor.

I agree. A jury may decide that Murder 1 is not appropriate and vote for lesser charges. Or there could be a hung jury. I'd be surprised if there was an acquittal. JMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Actually, yes, it does. I believe it was SpanishInquisition who posted the link to Byford previously:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1474569.html

Deliberation remains a critical element of the mens rea necessary for first-degree murder, connoting a dispassionate weighing process and consideration of consequences before acting.  “In order to establish first-degree murder, the premeditated killing must also have been done deliberately, that is, with coolness and reflection.”
​

BBM. With coolness and reflection. This is not first-degree murder, no way no how. Saying it's so don't make it so.

From your link:

Accordingly, we set forth the following instructions for use by the district courts in cases where defendants are charged with first-degree murder based on willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.

Murder of the first degree is murder which is perpetrated by means of any kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.   All three elements-willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation-must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted of first-degree murder.

Willfulness is the intent to kill.   There need be no appreciable space of time between formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing.

Deliberation is the process of determining upon a course of action to kill as a result of thought, including weighing the reasons for and against the action and considering the consequences of the action.

A deliberate determination may be arrived at in a short period of time.   But in all cases the determination must not be formed in passion, or if formed in passion, it must be carried out after there has been time for the passion to subside and deliberation to occur.   A mere unconsidered and rash impulse is not deliberate, even though it includes the intent to kill.4

Premeditation is a design, a determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind by the time of the killing.

Premeditation need not be for a day, an hour, or even a minute.   It may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind.   For if the jury believes from the evidence that the act constituting the killing has been preceded by and has been the result of premeditation, no matter how rapidly the act follows the premeditation, it is premeditated.

The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of the period during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to kill which is truly deliberate and premeditated.   The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances.

The true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection.   A cold, calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time, but a mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not deliberation and premeditation as will fix an unlawful killing as murder of the first degree.

**********************************************

Sounds pretty much just like other premeditation-first degree cases in other states.

He certainly had ample time to reflect when the Myers car backed up and turned around fleeing even though he had already shot at them the first time. Maybe the first shooting location could be called an impulsive act but certainly not the second one which was deliberate, willful and premeditated acts. He had to travel from point A (first shooting) to Point B in order to murder Tammy Myers and attempt to murder BM.

I think it will be easy to prove the premeditation in this case. The mere fact that EN&DA hunted down the Myers after they fled in order to shoot Tammy Myers and try to shoot Brandon Myers shows he thought about it beforehand, and that is why he pursued them, and opened fire once he had them hemmed in at their home.

The Audi didn't drive itself there nor did the .45 shoot multiple times on its own. It takes aforethought to do all of these things. Each time he pulled the trigger he had time to reflect before firing off another shot.

The instructions the court put forth does not have 'coolness' in it.

 

[newone]

DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!

I've always wondered how he could even drive after hearing such bad news......

 

[SeeAlice]

Off-topic
I used to be able to click Thread Tools > Printable Version - then choose 1000 posts per page. Made it very easy to search for something in a thread and also for catching up on reading. Now it will only show 50 posts per thread. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/printthread.php?t=274410&pp=50

Is that something admins control or is it something in my user settings? (Maybe I can change end of URL to "=1000"?)

Thanks.

 

[al66pine]

Originally Posted by sonjay " .... First, everyone expects the accused to lie. No one expects the family of the alleged victim to lie.... " bbm

I don't expect accused to lie, so please don't include be in your 'everyone."

Even if a person does not expect the accused to lie, it does seem reasonable or logical
toack. the accused, simply by being accused, has reason to lie - to avoid conviction.


Another approach: not expecting anyone - alleged vic or alleged perp - to tell the truth or to lie.

In some cases, ppl claiming early on to be vics turn out later to be perps.
Sometimes their pre-crime and post-crime actions and stories just compound the public's confusion about status as vic or perp.
Those actions can also muddy the waters for LE investigation, prosecution, juries and judges.
JM2cts.

 

[SStarr33]

Huh? You do know he finally succeeded in firing his gun 3 times? What is the correlation between shooting and being killed? BM shot and is alive. TM did not shoot and she was killed. EN shot and he is alive.

Go back and look at the post of yours that I was responding to :facepalm:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I would like to say I think it's possible for a jury to vote for lesser charges based on emotions and not the evidence because of my recent experience while serving jury duty.

During Voir Dire a prospective juror admitted that while serving on a jury a year earlier the jury voted for lesser chargers because they didn't feel that the severe punishment a felony conviction was warranted. They thought that probation and rehab was appropriate.

A jury is supposed to only consider if a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They are not supposed to vote one way or another based on what the punishment will be. But they do it all the time IMO.

I've felt that professional jurors may be a good idea.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Possibly voluntary manslaughter. IMO, also possibly acquittal or hung jury. The Claus Bros. strike me as pretty competent attorneys, and the Meyerses have given them lots of reasonable doubt to work with.

I can see any number of issues, but none that would lead to acquittal with what we currently know as any number of things could have happened and any number of lies could have been told, but that still does not mean that certain acts done by EN (and possibly Andrews - who I could see getting off completely) would be serious crimes. There has been certain theories that have been floated by yourself as well as me amongst others, but I consider them in the 'earth-shattering reveal' category rather than what is most solidly on the record as it exists now. No matter what had preceded the final event on Mt Shasta, the only way I could see EN getting off based on the existing record is if the Claus Brothers found some way of 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit' type thing to explain how EN arrived on Mt Shasta by accident because Andrews was confused, which is possible but I don't consider it probable...maybe the Claus Brothers will call them Laurel and Hardy and make them out to be clueless bumblers with this being another fine mess they've gotten themselves into.

 

[sonjay]

I can see any number of issues, but none that would lead to acquittal with what we currently know as any number of things could have happened and any number of lies could have been told, but that still does not mean that certain acts done by EN (and possibly Andrews - who I could see getting off completely) would be serious crimes. There has been certain theories that have been floated by yourself as well as me amongst others, but I consider them in the 'earth-shattering reveal' category rather than what is most solidly on the record as it exists now. No matter what had preceded the final event on Mt Shasta, the only way I could see EN getting off based on the existing record is if the Claus Brothers found some way of 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit' type thing to explain how EN arrived on Mt Shasta by accident because Andrews was confused, which is possible but I don't consider it probable...maybe the Claus Brothers will call them Laurel and Hardy and make them out to be clueless bumblers with this being another fine mess they've gotten themselves into.

I think you're probably right. But I also think that the Claus Bros just might be able to raise enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury even without some earth-shattering reveal. There's a significant amount of ambiguity in the accounts of what EN told his friends and Mogg. There's plenty of of reason to doubt or disbelieve anything BM & KM might say.

If the Clauses can put forward plausible, believable alternative scenarios that comport with the evidence, that might be enough for acquittal. In fact, if there are plausible, believable alternative scenarios that comport with the evidence, then acquittal is what should happen — because if the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that means that, by definition, there are no plausible alternative scenarios.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I would like to say I think it's possible for a jury to vote for lesser charges based on emotions and not the evidence because of my recent experience while serving jury duty.

During Voir Dire a prospective juror admitted that while serving on a jury a year earlier the jury voted for lesser chargers because they didn't feel that the severe punishment a felony conviction was warranted. They thought that probation and rehab was appropriate.

A jury is supposed to only consider if a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They are not supposed to vote one way or another based on what the punishment will be. But they do it all the time IMO.

I've felt that professional jurors may be a good idea.

Actually this goes back to before the founding of our system. Juries have the right to jury nullification, though it has been watered down somewhat lately. From Chief Justice John Jay in a 1794 SCOTUS decision: "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." Jurors who vote for lesser charges because they feel certain law's penalties are excessive are within their rights as a juror where a juror in fully fulfilling their duties can vote for lesser charges even if they think the defendant is guilty of the greater charges. Usually jurors having these rights isn't advertised as this goes back to the 1895 SCOTUS decision of Sparf v United States where SCOTUS ruled that judges didn't have to tell jurors they had these rights, but whether or not the juries are informed of these rights, it has been repeatedly upheld that jurors have these rights.

Reducio ad absurdum if a state passed a law that made jaywalking a capital offense, juries in that state would be within their legal rights of acquitting people of jaywalking even if they juries believe the state proved the accused broke the law.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Actually this goes back to before the founding of our system. Juries have the right to jury nullification, though it has been watered down somewhat lately. From Chief Justice John Jay in a 1794 SCOTUS decision: "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." Jurors who vote for lesser charges because they feel certain law's penalties are excessive are within their rights as a juror where a juror in fully fulfilling their duties can vote for lesser charges even if they think the defendant is guilty of the greater charges. Usually jurors having these rights isn't advertised as this goes back to the 1895 SCOTUS decision of Sparf v United States where SCOTUS ruled that judges didn't have to tell jurors they had these rights, but whether or not the juries are informed of these rights, it has been repeatedly upheld that jurors have these rights.

Voting for lessor charges isn't a problem in my opinion. It's voting not guilty on charges simply because you don't like the penalty that I have a problem with. That's not right.

 

[BellaVita]

BBM

Chambering a round does not necessarily mean you want to shoot. Pulling the trigger does. There's no testimony saying that Brandon pulled the trigger of his gun while in the car. JMO.

IDK. If I've got a gun and someone is shooting their gun at me and I attempt to load/chamber my gun, I'm pretty sure I want to shoot. Otherwise, why am I doing that?