Fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m well aware of what a defense lawyer’s job entails, so please be good enough not to lecture me on it.

I agree that a lawyer might make such a defense as you outlined, but a ‘good’ lawyer wouldn’t do so. Why? Because, at the very least, s/he’d be laughed out of court.

If such a defense had an ice lolly’s chance in Hell of working, it would allow the murder of anyone, any where, at any time.

Judge: ‘Why did your client shoot Mr. Brian James in the face with a bazooka?’

Lawyer: ‘Because he feared that Mr. James might someday drive a bus load of toddlers off a cliff.’

Judge: ‘Case dismissed.’

Boru

(‘Brooks’, not ‘Brown’.)

I disagree. I've seen lots of cases where people get off on very absurd defenses. Mob bosses come to mind. Jury selection isn't made just by the prosecutor, the defense has a say too. There is no given that either way, what a juror is going to think or say or do.  And as a defense lawyer it would be my job to sniff out someone who might side with my client. And in our current climate of favoring law first, you cannot say someone sympathetic to law enforcement won't get on that jury.

Thanks for the correction, you are right "Brooks". 

The Judge doesn't dismiss a case themselves, they may override a prosecutor pre trial, or even a grand jury. But if the client chooses a trial and the jury is hung or votes to acquit then the case is dismissed. 

There are lots of potential jurors in cases like this that will side with the cops. Just watch Fox News right now on this case. They have tons of viewers that would buy such fucked up argument. Again, like it or not, the defense lawyer is going to sniff out a potential juror they think might side with their client.

Again with the lecturing. Please don’t feel you have to explain things that everybody already knows.

Please give and example of someone getting off with an ‘absurd defense’.

Boru