"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Len - agreed; as to expecting the jurors to think like lawyers, it
does seem like a neat piece of logic doesn't it (contrasting it to an
intuitive approach). If A then B... But it didn't work.
It would be interesting to read what the judge said about setting aside
their decision; one of the types of info I wish I could find (jury
charges would be interesting too but the broadcasts usually go into
commercials generally here, where we could get a glimpse of the
strategies, the planning and thinking processesD.
On another note, the case Sue posted here seems to contrast in that it
Defense wants to obtain lesser included charges, to which the hightest
court of Nebraska agreed, but the Supremes say the 'Beck' rule for
lesser-includeds didn't hold for that state; I wonder what was argued in
the trial court. Correct me if I have that wrong... :) LDMF.
----------------Leonard Booth wrote:-----------------------------------
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dr.LDMF
>
> The lesser included charge in the nanny case came about cause the Judge
> threw out the jury's verdict.
>
> I think the attorney's for the nanny simply expected the jurors to think
> and act like lawyers. It's possible the attorneys were thinking far enough
> ahead and felt the judge would not allow a 2nd degree murder conviction
> stand if their thinking about the jury was wrong. We'll never know what
> was really going on in their minds.
>
> Len
>
> At 01:26 AM 3/15/1998 -0800, you wrote:
> >"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >Sue and group - there certainly does seem to be in common the issue
> >whether a defendant is entitled to a jury charge on lesser-included
> >charges.This way the sentence would have to be less.
> >
> >As I recall - check me out - the defense in the Nanny trial did not want
> >this because they wanted absolute innocence or absolute guilt, using the
> >strategy that absolute guilt woudln't happen. But if this is right, as
> >I say, check me out -- then how did the lesser-included count come about
> >in the Nanny trial; my memory is not recent on this, appreciate if you
> >or group could post on this;
> >
> >do you think there's any generalization possible on these things, and
> >can the absolute black/white defense ever work, or should attorneys
> >argue the gray? C U soon, :) LDMF.
> >--------------------Sue Hartigan wrote:-------------------------------
> >>
> >> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> No 96-1693
> >>
> >> Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
> >>
> >> At issue in this death-penalty case is whether a person convicted of
> >> felony murder had a due process right to have jury instructions on
> >> lesser-included charges (second-degree murder or manslaughter) when,
> >> under
> >> Nebraska law, no lesser-included offenses for felony murder exist.
> >>
> >> On March 29, 1980 Randolph Reeves raped and stabbed two women to death
> >> in
> >> a Quaker meetinghouse in Lincoln, NE. A jury found him guilty of felony
> >> murder and a three judge panel sentenced him to death. The jury was
> >> told
> >> that the penalty for felony murder could be life imprisonmente or death.
> >> The court below held that under Beck v. Alabama (447 US 625 (1980)), the
> >> jury had to be instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence
> >> could warrant a conviction for those offenses. The State maintains that
> >> felony murder has never included lesser offenses in NE and since the
> >> three
> >> judge panel had discretion in sentencing, the Beck rule doesn't apply.
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
> >
> >
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
> >
> >
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
