Because “more believable” is not “beyond reasonable doubt”. Because the accused deserves the benefit of the doubt. And because both sides had motive to lie. The correct view, based solely on the witness testimony, is “we don’t know, so he remains innocent as he was presumed to be”.
It’s mind-boggling that anyone would suggest that witness testimony should never be trusted if they are friends of the deceased in a murder trial.
Sometimes “more believable” is actually “beyond reasonable doubt”. The jury may have listened to all the stories, heard all the physical evidence, and decided, reasonably, that Dunn was lying beyond a reasonable doubt.
I disagree that, based solely on the witness statements, a reasonable jury could find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the law allows that, the law is wrong, and the decision the jury made was morally, if not legally, wrong.
So if I see someone shoot my wife, and I tell the jury “he shot my wife and she didn’t threaten him”, but he says “no, she did threaten me so I shot her”, then my testimony should be disregarded for his?
This means that in literally every single murder case in history that wasn’t filmed and recorded the accused could say “he threatened to kill me, so I killed him”, and even if there were witnesses that denied this, the accused would go free.
It’s equally mind boggling that anyone would suggest that the testimony of someone who claims to have been threatened or attacked should never be trusted, because they acted to defend themselves.
If you genuinely think it’s inconceivable that someone would lie about their friend threatening someone before being shot, I really don’t know what to say… There’s a lot of people who would lie to protect their friends or their reputation. That’s kinda what friends do.
When did I say it should never be trusted? Juries are entitled to hear both stories and make a decision.
I don’t think this is inconceivable. Juries are entitled to hear the stories and decide if the preponderance of evidence goes beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes the possibility that they believe or disbelieve the accused, and believe or disbelieve the witnesses. Sometimes they might decide the witness is lying, based on contradictions or mannerisms or something else, and sometimes they might decide the accused is lying, based on contradictions, mannerisms, etc.
All these are reasonable possibilities.
Steophan – suppose I see someone shoot my wife. He is arrested. The evidence is rock solid that he shot her.
At the trial, he says my wife threatened to kill him. I say he didn’t.
Are you really saying that the jury should disregard my testimony for his necessarily? You don’t think it’s reasonable that the jury might find my story true, and decide that collectively this eliminated reasonable doubt?
If that’s the only evidence, then I’d disregard both, so he’s not guilty.
No, that’s not correct. Quite. Sufficient independent witnesses could be sufficient, as could many other things. To pick one obvious example, being shot in the back - you know, what Dunn was convicted for trying to do.
But yes, in a situation like similar to Zimmerman/Martin, but if the girlfriend has been present rather than on the phone, barring corroborating evidence there should never be a murder conviction. I’m really not sure what the problem with this is. Self defence, at least morally, is a right, and one who has to use it is a victim. Victim’s shouldn’t have to prove their innocence.
Do you understand that the jury may choose to believe or disbelieve any witness, as long as that witness’ testimony is not incredible as a matter of law?
What, specifically, do you believe prevented a reasonable jury from finding guilt?
For example, Dunn himself testified that he thought he saw a gun. The jury is entitled to disbelieve him, if they thought he was lying. Right?
That means anyone can literally shoot my wife in front of me and get away with it if there are no other witnesses.
You’re free to adopt whatever moral rules you like, but the rest of the country has no mandate to disregard the current rules and adopt ones based on your concept of morality.
Why is it impossible that the multiple witnesses in the Dunn case don’t constitute sufficient witnesses?
I’m curious if anyone else in the history of earth has ever shared this opinion.
This reminds me of the discussion with Smapti in which he declared that helping slaves to escape from slavery is morally wrong.
It is not reasonable to find guilt based solely on uncorroborated witness statements by potentially biased witnesses. Finding guilt solely based on witness statements at all is extremely problematic, based on what we know of how memory - especially memory of traumatic situations - works. Several independent witnesses could sometimes suffice.
Compare that to the attempted murder charges that Dunn was convicted of. There, he also claimed self defence, but the remainder of his statement along with the physical evidence showed that it was not reasonable to be threatened at that point, as they were leaving.
If the only claim that they had been leaving was from the victims, but Dunn’s testimony and the physical evidence was either silent on the issue or showed otherwise, it would not have sufficed to prove guilt. IMHO.
So you’re fine with the jury deciding he was lying in those cases, but in the other case, after already determining Dunn is a liar from his other claim, they must accept his story and disregard the others? Wow that’s weird.
You don’t think it might be reasonable that the jury says “we know he has a history of lying about self-defense, so we don’t find this claim of self-defense credible at all”?
I’ll repeat this again, from Steophan, because it’s so strange and disturbing – if the justice system worked as he would prefer, anyone could literally murder my wife in front of me and get away with it despite my witness testimony, as long as they claimed my wife threatened them.
If done in a way that was consistent with self defence, quite possibly yes.
Well yes, obviously. That’s why I’ve tried to distinguish between legal and moral views.
Really? You think freeing slaves is the moral equivalent of jailing those who kill in self defence? Otherwise I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make. I don’t want people convicted of crimes unless it’s effectively certain they committed them. I also don’t want people jailed for crimes if they’re not morally wrong - so even if someone did commit a crime by killing someone in self defence, I wouldn’t want them jailed. So, I would wholeheartedly support anyone freeing slaves, and I’d equally support any jury that nullified if they were factually guilty of a crime.
Let me make it very clear. The State jailing an innocent person is far worse than an individual getting away with murder.
Potentially, yes. What do you find so disturbing about that? Why should your testimony be believed over that of the person your wife attacked (to look at it from the other point of view)?
Please, answer that question. Why is your testimony inherently more reliable than the killer’s?
It’s not. But the jury should be allowed to conclude that my testimony in a given instance is more reliable, or not more reliable, and that my testimony combined with the other evidence is enough to eliminate reasonable doubt, or it’s not enough.