GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #7

[PaperDoll]

This is what I think too. They are pressuring the heck out of DA to take a deal and turn on EN. Then they can pressure EN and his attorneys to take a plea. I don't believe the prosecution wants this case to ever see a courtroom, no way.

IMO I think the prosecution has a good case. However I personally don't think this is a death penalty case for either DA or EN; I wouldn't want this to turn out like the Jodi Arias penalty phase.. :tantrum: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

IMO I think the prosecution has a good case. However I personally don't think this is a death penalty case for either DA or EN; I wouldn't want this to turn out like the Jodi Arias penalty phase.. :tantrum: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

I think they have a good case for conviction if the defense will allow for lesser charges, but if the defense forces M1 or nothing, I think the prosecution would lose. A jury isn't going to be looking to throw the book at some innocent bystander who over-reacted in the seconds following a provocation that came out of nowhere.

 

[Deleted member 50844]

I think they have a good case for conviction if the defense will allow for lesser charges, but if the defense forces M1 or nothing, I think they prosecution would lose. A jury isn't going to be looking to throw the book at some innocent bystander who over-reacted in the seconds following a provocation that came out of nowhere.

My thoughts exactly. To get 12 jurors to vote guilty for M1 is going to be very difficult in my opinion, and that's just basing it on the differing opinions we have here! At least some of the jurors, IMO, are going to be thinking about how the Meyers family played into this scene and how none of this would have ever happened if not for their provocation. And that's not even taking into account the ever changing story of the sequence of events. Simply put, the jury will have a nagging doubt of what really transpired, enough doubt to not want to put EN to death or in prison forever.
I'm also betting that we will see some type of charges after the trial is over levied against the lying family members. I believe the simple reason that hasn't happened yet is because the State knows it would muddy the waters even more and plant more doubt in the jurors' minds and that could work against the case of the Prosecution of EN. THIS IS ALL OF COURSE, JUST MY OPINION.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think they have a good case for conviction if the defense will allow for lesser charges, but if the defense forces M1 or nothing, I think the prosecution would lose. A jury isn't going to be looking to throw the book at some innocent bystander who over-reacted in the seconds following a provocation that came out of nowhere.

Can the defense force the prosecution into charging murder one and nothing else? I never knew that was possible. I always thought that the State would sometimes overcharge a defendant so that a jury would at least vote for a lesser charge. I feel that's what the State tried to do in the Zimmerman trial.

Never heard of this all or nothing defense before. JMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Can the defense force the prosecution into charging murder one and nothing else? I never knew that was possible. I always thought that the State would sometimes overcharge a defendant so that a jury would at least vote for a lesser charge. I feel that's what the State tried to do in the Zimmerman trial.

Never heard of this all or nothing defense before. JMO.

It is something that can be done, but is rarely done because usually it is to the benefit of both the prosecution and the defense to have lesser includeds be available to the jury - the prosecutor can notch another win in their career and the defense team can show they got their client a lesser sentence, so if things are clearly gray between charges as they usually are everyone wants lesser includeds. When you go all in, you risk a lot as someone who might have got a lesser charge if the jury had an option would go with that but on the other hand the prosecution could lose a case entirely when they would have got a conviction on a lesser charge, so usually these risks are not taken. Unlike many other cases, I think this would be one to roll the dice as long as the DA is basing their case on EN being an innocent bystander who did something within seconds of provocation that came out of nowhere. I see it as technically possible to get M1 as in any intentional homicide it is technically possible to get M1, just in this specific case I think the jury going for M1 in this scenario is quote low. I would think with a jury put in an All In M1 situation, it would either by a de facto acquittal by hung jury or an outright acquittal as you wouldn't find a jury where 12 people could unanimously agree to M1, but I could see any number of jurors less than unanimous being for M1. If Andrews was to turn state's evidence, the calculus would change for EN where lesser includeds may be in his interest, but until I see more I'm not seeing a reason for Andrews to flip...he could say he was the driver doing EN a favor and was terrified out of the blue and I don't think a jury is going to want to hang M1 on him even if he openly says he was the driver, which if he was the driver openly admitting it could help get him off in that situation.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

When I have time I'll see if I can find a link that confirms that in the State of Nevada a defendant can decide whether or not there will be lesser included charges. Seems strange if they can.

 

[sonjay]

When I have time I'll see if I can find a link that confirms that in the State of Nevada a defendant can decide whether or not there will be lesser included charges. Seems strange if they can.

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/g...-jury-deliberating-in-biker-gang-murder-trial

 

[Deleted member 39678]

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/g...-jury-deliberating-in-biker-gang-murder-trial

Thanks for the link. Looks like it didn't work too well for that guy.

Biker gang leader guilty of murder in casino shooout

Pinning all his hopes on an acquittal, Gonzalez told the judge earlier Wednesday that he wanted to take off the table the possibility of a lesser manslaughter conviction.

If the two defendants in this case want to take that gamble I say go for it.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/07/biker-gang-leader-convicted/2630199/

 

[SpanishInquisition]

When I have time I'll see if I can find a link that confirms that in the State of Nevada a defendant can decide whether or not there will be lesser included charges. Seems strange if they can.

Part of this goes by statute as well as by caselaw where like if people are facing murder, if the defense asks for it the jury must receive it...and even that can come into dispute on appeal. The jury instructions aren't something automatic just based on the charges, but that's part of what goes before the court as part of the inside baseball of a trial. One thing I found conspicuous in its absence was in the non-adversarial probable cause-based GJ instructions they were not offered lesser included charges, but instead were given instructions for M1, etc and told what self-defense was. Given that I can see why the jury did indict as probable cause was there and they weren't given the option of indicting on something else (I'd indict on the GJ as there is probable cause for M1, but acquit on the trial jury given reasonable doubt based on what was provided for M1), but the rules change in a trial jury as the standard of proof required goes up, you're in an adversarial proceeding where witnesses get cross-examined and you can't just write your own jury instructions but instead they are fought over.

Also something to keep in mind, which I do think there's some confusion on is that even though EN is asserting the affirmative defense of that it was self-defense, it is still the burden of the prosecution to disprove it in that jurisdiction. The same also goes for Florida where - like in the GZ trial - the defense can assert self-defense but the burden doesn't switch to them for proving it. With GZ for example he didn't have to prove he wasn't the one who started the fight where he ended up on the ground, but instead it was up to the prosecution to prove GZ started the fight. I'm not directing this necessarily towards you, just sometimes I hear it asserted on here that it's up to EN's defense to prove self-defense, but it isn't. There is more incriminating against EN than GZ, but one thing I've not seen presented so far is any statement from EN where he specifically intended to kill rather than not caring one way or the other, which none of his statements ever say that...like his 'I got them' was said within the context of him not knowing how badly he hit someone (so he wasn't celebrating that he killed them as he didn't know the extent of injuries they had or even what gender they were...and in fact at that time they were still alive - just that he inflicted some kind of damage on people he viewed as a threat) and it was also said within the full quote of the sentence of them being after him as a defensive response.

 

[Solitaryone]

This case is very interesting! I've been glued to the threads since the beginning, and want to thank everyone here for the interesting and informative posts.

With what is known so far, I wouldn't vote for Murder1. I think I'd vote for Manslaughter for EN, and not enough info to hazard a guess on DA, though I do think he was the driver. I do think the Meyers's were the aggressors, and I hope we find out what the back story is between them and EN. I wonder if a speedy trial would be in both EN and DA's best interests? The Prosecution still has to deal with the ever changing stories from the Meyers's, and I wonder what would happen if the Claus brothers and DA's lawyer demanded a speedy trial?

I'm sorry TM was killed, and I wish all involved had stayed home that night.

 

[LancelotLink]

Given what we know now, what will this trial look like?
IMO, prosecution can't call KM because she would have to testify about the road rage, giving the defense the opportunity to rip her story to shreds. They can't call BM because he will have to explain why he went out to find the road rager and the defense will rip his testimony to shreds. If I were the defense, I would pound that all roads led to EN and the park. Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This case is very interesting! I've been glued to the threads since the beginning, and want to thank everyone here for the interesting and informative posts.

With what is known so far, I wouldn't vote for Murder1. I think I'd vote for Manslaughter for EN, and not enough info to hazard a guess on DA, though I do think he was the driver. I do think the Meyers's were the aggressors, and I hope we find out what the back story is between them and EN. I wonder if a speedy trial would be in both EN and DA's best interests? The Prosecution still has to deal with the ever changing stories from the Meyers's, and I wonder what would happen if the Claus brothers and DA's lawyer demanded a speedy trial?

I'm sorry TM was killed, and I wish all involved had stayed home that night.

I don't see the defense having an advantage by invoking the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. I believe that the State has enough evidence to gain a conviction at this point. I think the defendant's should ask for more time in order to build some kind of hopeful defense.

JMO.

 

[sonjay]

Given what we know now, what will this trial look like?
IMO, prosecution can't call KM because she would have to testify about the road rage, giving the defense the opportunity to rip her story to shreds. They can't call BM because he will have to explain why he went out to find the road rager and the defense will rip his testimony to shreds. If I were the defense, I would pound that all roads led to EN and the park. Thoughts?

IMO, the prosecution can't avoid calling both KM and BM. First, because they're the primary witnesses.

Second, because every lawyer with half a brain knows that it's better to present your "problems" yourself. That way, you can at least present those problems in the most favorable light, and you can keep your opponent from implying that you were trying to hide them. It will be far, far better for the prosecution to put KM on the stand with her awful and unbelievable road rage story, and to put BM on the stand with his lame explanation about he and his mother setting out to look for the road rager. If the prosecution doesn't present those things, of its own volition during the state's presention, the defense will make it look like the prosecution was trying to hide those two. I can't even imagine what fun the defense would have with that.

If I were the defense, I would pound that all roads led to EN and the park. Thoughts?

I like it! Literally and figuratively, yep, all roads lead to EN and the park. And the Meyerses just couldn't stay away from the park or leave EN alone.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Given what we know now, what will this trial look like?
IMO, prosecution can't call KM because she would have to testify about the road rage, giving the defense the opportunity to rip her story to shreds. They can't call BM because he will have to explain why he went out to find the road rager and the defense will rip his testimony to shreds. If I were the defense, I would pound that all roads led to EN and the park. Thoughts?

Unless EN's defense has categorical proof that can blows things up - and even if they do - it is in their best interest that KM and BM's story is considered credible. I do think some of the finer points will be on whether not EN saw the Buick on Carmel and what he did about it. I think the timing of various 911/private calls and video footage showing both what transpired as well as the time that it did could be important - both for the prosecution and the defense.

 

[SeeAlice]

DA could have learned about the situation the same way the Ms say they did. Social media/neighborhood gossip. It's entirely possible these people all have some shared friends too.

If he found out through those methods prior to ENs arrest, it's possible for him to have both seen the news and had time to tell EN to erase him.

BINGO! I believe we have a winner! If Bob could "solve the crime" based on social media posts by 2/15, I strongly feel DA could come to the same conclusion, with or without Mr. Bob's persuasiveness

 

[sonjay]

Unless EN's defense has categorical proof that can blows things up - and even if they do - it is in their best interest that KM and BM's story is considered credible. I do think some of the finer points will be on whether not EN saw the Buick on Carmel and what he did about it. I think the timing of various 911/private calls and video footage showing both what transpired as well as the time that it did could be important - both for the prosecution and the defense.

Which version?

 

[sonjay]

BINGO! I believe we have a winner! If Bob could "solve the crime" based on social media posts by 2/15, I strongly feel DA could come to the same conclusion, with or without Mr. Bob's persuasiveness

But in that statement to the media in front of his house, RM said that they knew it was EN all along. "We knew this boy" and "Mommy knew who this was.... She didn't want it to come back here." RM didn't need social media.

 

[SStarr33]

BINGO! I believe we have a winner! If Bob could "solve the crime" based on social media posts by 2/15, I strongly feel DA could come to the same conclusion, with or without Mr. Bob's persuasiveness

No Bingo. As was pointed out the other day, DA told the police he learned from the news.

 

[sonjay]

No Bingo. As was pointed out the other day, DA told the police he learned from the news.

I could be mistaken, but I thought he said he learned about it "from the media."

It wouldn't surprise me if a 20-something includes "social media" in his definition of "the media."

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Which version?

Whatever version they're floating that has EN be an innocent bystander.