Maybe. I’m not saying the guy is innocent.
But the jury should get to see the facts. It amazes me that anyone would disagree with this. When does ignorance help a person make a better decision?
The fact that they broke into other houses before and this specific house before is certainly relevant. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?
There is only evidence that one of the teens had broken into the house before.
Yes, I am arguing for the rules of evidence. I’m not sure what you’re arguing for, a mini-trial for burglary in the middle of the murder trial? Because that’s what we’re talking about, a murder trial. The teens breaking into any number of houses, including this man’s, in no way changes the law applicable to the homeowner vis a vis self defense and murder. That’s why it’s irrelevant: it’s neither inculpatory nor exculpatory.
But what is on trial here is his actions, and the reasons for his actions. What they may or may not have done that he didn’t know about has absolutely no bearing on that. If I take a rifle and put a couple of rounds in the head of a random person walking down the street, should the judge go easy on me if it is later found out that that person was a spousal abuser or bank robber?
I’m simply arguing for the jury getting all the relevant information. That’s it.
Not sure why you think that would require two trials.
First of all, I’ve never suggested that the judge or anyone else “go easy on” the defendant. I’m simply arguing for giving them all the information so they can make better decisions.
Second, in your example: Yes, the jury should know that the person you shot was a known bank robber. Since for the analogy to work your defense was that you were trying to stop him from robbing the bank where you worked when you shot him.
The fact that he had robbed other banks, and indeed this bank before, would be very relevant information that the jury would need to make a good decision.
Their previous actions were not relevant-otherwise they would have been admissible.
Well, if the defense is permitted to introduce evidence that the teens had burgled before, does the prosecution not have the right to introduce their own evidence pertaining to that, cross-examine wtinesses, and so forth? What is that, if not a mini-trial about a separate crime committed by persons other than the defendant?
Reread the analogy…only this time, remove all the added details you put in to justify your argument.
To flesh this out further:
How are you defining relevance, here? How can something that’s neither indicative of guilt, nor indicative of innocence, be relevant to the trial?
My added details weren’t put in to justify my argument, they were put in to correct your analogy. For your situation to be analogous to the case in question, you’d have to be claiming to have shot an intruder who was there to rob the bank. Do you really not see that?
You could say this about anything. Prosecution claims something, the defense denies it. They both make arguments. Not sure why you choose to characterize this as a “mini-trial”. Like anything else the jury can weigh it accordingly, like any other evidence.
The difference is that the argument is about the crime the defendant is accused of, and not a different crime committed by different people, the factuality of which has no bearing on the murder trial. Hence “mini-trial”.
Again, for emphasis: the defendant’s guilt or innocence is in no way influenced by whether the teens had burgled before, or even burgled the defendant’s house before. There’s no exemption in the murder statute for victims of burglaries, or that burglars can’t be murdered. If there were, then previous burglaries would be relevant.
The only way the teens’ alleged previous crimes would influence the verdict would be if the jury decided they didn’t like burglars, and acquitted on that basis. And that ain’t justice.
“Evidence” consists of things that are relevant. The jury doesn’t weigh facts like what the defendant had for breakfast.
It’s a mini-trial because the victim had not been convicted of the previous burglary. So the jury is being asked to assume he was, or decide he wasn’t based on evidence which is mostly not available, all to draw an inference which wouldn’t really be relevant anyway.
“The victim pulled a gun on me, so I shot him” is directly relevant and thus appropriately considered by the jury. This isn’t the same sort of evidence.
Not true.
I’ve given a perfectly plausible way that that information could have affected the outcome. A juror believes, as Czarcasm suggested, that the homeowner lured the kids into the house. Or a juror believes that the kids weren’t breaking and entering at all. These notions would be put to rest by the knowledge that they had broken in before and were known to break in to houses.
You really think the fact that one of the kids broke into this house previously is the equivalent of what he had for breakfast? If that’s truly what you think, I don’t know how to relate to you.
This is exactly the same sort. “The victim broke into my house, so a shot him” is directly relevant and thus should be considered by the jury. The fact that he broke in before goes directly to the state of mind of the defendant.
“The victim broke into my house six weeks ago, so I shot him”, you mean? What non-culpable state of mind might that prove?
I believe they are equally relevant. It’s still murder when you shoot someone who has wronged you twice - and that’s assuming he knew who they were.
No, they wouldn’t; a person who has burgled before can still be lured, and breaking into one house doesn’t make one automatically guilty of breaking into another.
What would put them to rest: evidence that the teens broke into this particular house on this particular night…which exists, mind you, the audio recording captured the sound of glass breaking as the male teen broke in.
I got nothing to add to this thread other than, if you get a chance, listen to the absolutely chilling audio contained in zoltar7’s link. Holy shit. This fucking guy puts one round into the girl, then there’s a delay of a few seconds (reloading or clearing a jam) during which he says "Oh, sorry about that!" in a chipper tone before emptying another five slugs into her. :eek: