I voted guility just because the law seems so clear cut, but on second thought, I could probably hang my hat on temporary insanity if I was a juror.
I also seem to remember that Morgan Freeman was the only witness. Weren’t they alone with Spacey after the package got delivered? How hard would it have been to put some kind of weapon on Spacey and say it was self defense? No one is going to push real hard to investigate it. The guy was a serial killer. Any kind of half-assed self defense story would work for the press and the DA. They could say that Doe pulled a knife out of the box or something. All public sympathy would be with Brad Pitt. I don’t see this ever even being prosecuted.
Even if there were other witnesses, I’m guessing they would back up a self defense story.
I watched the movie Sunday night. California (the cop in the helicopter watching via sniperscope, portrayed by John McGinley) says “Mills has killed John Doe” or some such, I think.
As for the law being clear: well, this will earn me a chastening by our lawyers, but the law is an ass sometimes. My obigation to behave morally is higher than my obligation to behave legally, and it would be immoral to convict Mills of murder; for him to have restrained himself under such terrible provocation would be all but impossible, so I do not believe he could establish the mens rea necessary for him to be morally guilty of the crime. Moreover, convicting him of murder and sending himto prison serve no just purpose whatsoever. It won’t deter anyone else from doing the same thing, not only because the circumstances are so bizarre but because human nature is such that no one can be reasonably expected to display rationality under such circumstances. It won’t rehabilitate him. All it will do is punish him and punishing him, in my judgment, is wrong.
Strictly by the letter of the law, in my non-professional opinion, Skald appears to be correct that Voluntary Manslaughter is the appropriate charge. The DA could conceivably push for Murder II given the moment of deliberation made, but that would hinge on the testimony of the two cops involved, and frankly I just don’t see any reasonable jury being able to convict that charge. I don’t think the hard-assed DA could pull enough evidence to make that plausible.
But Voluntary Manslaughter seems to fit the circumstances. Now the parallel between finding your wife in bed with a neighbor and finding out the person in front of you slaughtered your pregnant wife is not exact, but still reasonably similar. The DA could make that case if he desired.
The question is would any jury actually convict. The straw-poll here indicates that most people are willing to find some excuse not to convict. I would be hard-pressed in that case to convict. I mean, based on the letter of the law I would want to convinct, but based upon human emotion I would be looking for a reason not to. That appears to be similar for most people.
The “temporary insanity” defense appears to be a fig leaf most people are willing to hide behind to allow themselves to vote acquittal despite the situation squarely fitting the letter of the law. It abates the jury’s conscience to have an out. Any decent defense attorney should try to argue that defense.
I would be hard-pressed to convict, though probably would unless the defense made a good case. But I suspect most juries would either acquit or end in a hung jury. I just don’t see convincing all 12 to convict, regardless of the merits. Someone will be adamant that the guy had it coming and hang the letter of the law, they can’t convict the cop in those circumstances.
Assuming the jury got a reasonable amount of information on the case, such as why he was in custody, how he was manipulating Mills (which the defense attorney is going to make part of his defense), etc.
Gag, I never want to watch Seven again.
And that is not a good parallel. She took a gun to court - clearly premeditated. The guy was in custody and this was well after the events in question or finding out about them. Not parallel at all.
How does being a cop protect him from mental instability due to trauma?
Hell, the DA could charge him with Murder I, and then do his best case ever and would have the same outcome. The merits just don’t fit. If the judge allowed it and defense didn’t make a motion to dismiss. That’s what would keep the DA from filing. I mean, there would have to be collusion on the part of the Defense to let the charges stand to ensure acquittal, which I can’t see happening. That seems like a lousy strategy for the defense.
Much more likely to make the charge Murder II with no lesser included charges, then make a weak case and rely on the jury’s sense of outrage at the “victim” to lead to acquittal. But I can’t see a DA doing that, either. No DA is going to want to lose a case - any case. There’s no upside in that. You only file if you think you have a shot at winning. If you want to be lenient, you don’t file strict charges expecting to lose, you make a deal to some minor charge for that offense. It has the same effect, gets a conviction for your record rather than an acquittal, and saves working relationships within the justice system. Going after Mills puts the DA in an antagonistic position with the police. Doesn’t matter legal situation, the cops are going to side with Mills, and be miffed at any DA who doesn’t see it the same way.
Yeah, you probably don’t even have to be very convincing - put that defense on the table and most jurists will grab the excuse to acquit with both hands.
Suicide by cop. A strong case could be made after the fact that Doe manipulated the situation from the beginning to have a cop kill him for his final act - it was his plan all along.
However, it relies on Mills taking an action based upon rage rather than acting in line with legal lines and policy. A cop shooting a hostage taker who provokes the officer and then they find he had an empty guy is a case where the hostage taker manipulated the officer into killing him, but the cop had a reasonable expectation that lives were in danger and acted under rules of engagement and his best judgement. This situation is violating rules of engagement and the opposite of best judgment.
All the prosecutor has to do for what? I can’t tell what you are trying to say. If he wants to lose?
But when and how does that burden apply? I mean, the judge can instruct the jury all he wants about what the law says, but once they are behind closed doors they can all decide that it’s plausible enough to give them a reason, and let the guy walk.
Now the judge may evaluate the claims and decide the defense doesn’t have enough to go on to allow them to present that defense, which would keep it from getting to the jury. But if it is put on the table for the jury to evaluate, I can’t imagine a jury not attaching to it like a remora.
For years I always thought of it as New York but last time I watched it, the David Fincher connection clicked in my head and I instantly recognized everything as San Francisco. Though, since they never outright state that it takes place there, it’s not necessarily intended to be.
EDIT: And even that is wrong - filmed in Los Angeles. According to IMDB, the setting is intended to be a fictional city though it was inspired by the writer’s time in NYC.
I daresay if the prosecutor goes after a cop who shot a serial killer who’d just murdered the cop’s wife, there’s an excellent chance no cop in that city will ever willingly cooperate with that prosecutor again. There are larger issues at stake than a determinedly self-destructive sociopath.
It’s unlikely that the prosecutor would throw a case. Far more likely that he would agree to some kind of minimal plea deal. It’s not just the cops that would be on Mills’ side, but public opinion as well.
In real life, I think the prosecutor might work out some kind of deal for probation or house arrest or something, or maybe some minimal, token amount of jail time. No jury would convict this guy unanimously, but the prosecutor would have to make it look like he was doing something, so I’m guessing he would make a deal for the most minimal conviction and sentence he could possibly get away with.
I have to think a case like this actually going to trial would be a defense attorney’s wet dream.
Clear case of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.
Those arguing that that does not count because he knew the difference between right from wrong are missing two important things.
First, we don’t know at all if he knew shooting the killer at that point was wrong.
More importantly, not knowing the difference between right and wrong is only one of the ways someone can be deemed insane. There is also the irresistible impulse defense, which cover situations where the current mental state meant that it was impossible to do anything other than what was done.
Most people do not know about that second one, largely because it is not used as often because it is typically difficult to prove. A typical way it is explained, however, is that the desire to do that act is so great that no force or situation would prevent it, including the presence of police officers watching and ready to arrest you.
In other words, this is a textbook example of temporary insanity.
That was my point… that final scene wasn’t shot anywhere near NYC (or Baltimore, or anywhere on the east coast) and it looks suspiciously like SoCal, a continent away.
I too ANAL, but I’ve watched thousands of real criminal trials, far too many of them involving murder. So, I’ve heard the jury instructions, and prosecution closings, about the question of premeditation.
It doesn’t involve time, premeditation can occur in the blink of an eye, it’s simply making the decision to act instead of not acting.
I’ve also seen it argued that each act in the crime, each pull of the trigger, each stab, could (should) be seen as a separate premeditated act.
Mills’ actions at the end, vacillating between “I can’t kill him.” and “You’re dead!” show multiple acts of premeditation. It also weakens any affirmative defense. (Doe pulls a knife (self defense) but he just kneels there knife in hand (no affirmative defense) he attempts to get up moving towards Mills (self defense) … that’s all the flip side of Mills trying to come to decide what to do.)
I voted guilty because the law is so clear but, I agree there are viable defenses*. Except I can’t imagine Somerset’s testimony being anything other than exactly what we see at the end of the film. (IMHO Somerset was very aware that he was a couple of cases away from completely burning out, I’ve no doubt that having to testify against Mills would have put him at the bottom of a bottle, if the Doe case didn’t all by itself.)
I don’t think temporary insanity is the best defense here, but I don’t recall ever seeing what might be, provocation, used as a defense.
*
I’m reasonably certain because of the above that a temporary insanity/irresistible impulse defense wouldn’t work because Mills vacillates (and I don’t think “killing Doe because” vs. “not killing Doe because” rises to the level of not being able to distinguish right and wrong.)
CMC fnord!
The alternate endings are much more satisfying,
I still don’t understand what you were originally trying to say. “All the prosecutor has to do is…”
All that he is legally required to do if the case goes to court?
All that he has to do to ensure that he fails?
All that he has to do to inspire some cop to shoot him for being a sack-o-shit criminal coddler?
All he has to do to convince the jury that he’s the worst prosecutor ever?
All he has to do to ensure he will never be elected to DA?
Your original comment is unclear. Please explain what you meant.
If the prosecutor wants to be lenient, he’s not going to file a case and then throw it. That is just wrong all the way around. He will either choose not to file at all based upon the circumstances and the opinion he could never get a conviction (it’s what the people want), or if he feels compelled to do something, he will try to work a plea deal for some minimal charge. Then he gets a conviction for his stats (rather than a loss against him), he has ammo against legal rights agitators (You let a cop abuse power - shame on you!) because he did something, but he gets acceptance by other cops for showing leniency (I got him an involuntary manslaughter charge, and probation, rather than voluntary manslaughter and 5 years in prison). The only reason he takes it to court is he doesn’t feel he can do nothing, but the cop won’t take the plea deal because he thinks no jury will convict, but the prosecutor thinks the jury will based upon the law rather than the circumstances. Or if the prosecutor thinks that cop was abusing his power and really does want to convict him.
