I don’t know if he can be charged with that now. Could a lawyer argue that the cutting of the corpse and it’s disposal was part of the same act as the killing and would have to have been included among the charges of the first trial?
Can we get a ruling here?
Yes, it’s perfectly understandable.
So defensible. .
Regarding Spoof’s question.
<paging>Bricker or Minty</paging>
From the link I posted:
So apparently Durst was trying to subdue Black and/or get his gun away from the guy, according to his testimony.
Convienient to Durst’s story of self defense, Black’s head has never been found. He cut it off and disposed of it seperately from the other body parts.
Why? Because his defense hinged on the alleged murder actually being a case of self defense. He claims that he accidentally shot Black in the head during the struggle for a gun. Without the head, we must accept at least the possibility that this was the case and can’t proceed past the “reasonable doubt” level to garner a guilty charge.
My guess is that Black died from a blunt force trauma to the head, maybe from a bat or golf club or the like. It’s difficult to claim self defense when you’ve obviously beat someone to death. Durst is a wacko but he’s not stupid. The head and any incriminating evidence associated with it will never be found.
One more thing…
His lawyers won in two ways. First, they got the jury makeup they wanted. The comment has been made that the trial was essentailly over after the jury selection phase, it was so in their favor.
Secondly, they got that jury to focus not on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence (possibly being guilty in two other murders, fleeing prosecution from such, admitting to this killing, cutting up a corpse and then fleeing again) but on the lack of any definitive concrete evidence that it exactly fit the description of murder.
The jury seems quite proud of themselves that they did just focus on what dictated murder and a guilty charge and ignored everything else. They actually did the right thing, abhorrent as a not guilty verdict may be. Durst’s money in this case was able to buy counsel that wisely directed that focus while the prosecution blew what otherwise would have been a slam dunk.
So, what did he do with the head? I dunno about you, but if he refused to come clean on what he did with it, I don’t think I could easily acquit.
Disposing of a head doesn’t fit the description of murder. Had prosecutors gone for a lesser charge, left some sort of leeway in the possible interpretation of guilt by the jury then yes, a conviction would have been much harder to avoid.
But they went for the whole thing and failed to make their case.
Referring to the stupidity of the jurors?
If that’s the case, and stupid people are preferable to the defense, then is it possible for the prosecution to dismiss said idiot for cause?
If so, then why didn’t they do it in this case?
"Judge, I’m sorry, but I’d like to remove juror number five because he’s just plain dumb. Thanks.’
There’s some interesting questions in the whole ‘stupid people on the jury = acquittal’ theory.
Or maybe I’m just stupid.
I don’t have any idea if stupidity was a prerequisite or not. The defense did however question jurors about their understanding of the concept of self defense and the use of force.
In my opinion, given that the defense made such a huge deal between murder and obstruction of justice/tampering with evidence/concealing a homicide, there would be no legal bar to stop the prosecution from charging him with those offenses under the 5th Amendment double jeopardy clause. Unless Texas has a statute that requires all charges against a defendant arising from a single incident (which would be arguable), and I couldn’t find one, then it would be fine.
I wish I could say I am amazed at the stupidity of this jury, but nothing really surprises me any more. Here’s a little tidbit to show at least one juror’s idiocy:
While I agree the result of the trial indicates that the prosecution may not have done as stellar job as say, I would have, I think the jury, and not the prosecution, should bear the brunt of the disdain over letting this killer go free. I know it’s a ton easier to blame the prosecutor, but, in this case, I think it is, for the most part, undeserved.
IMHO, the verdict illustrates the tendency of a jury to completely disregard common sense, and to seek out something that is in the realm of possibility and to call it reasonable doubt. Is it possible the murder was in self-defense, I suppose. But was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t, Yes, it was. The mere fact that the evidence disproving self-defense was circumstantial does not make it unreliable, or unproven. Hell, even Durst himself was surprised that he was acquitted. Fucking killing, lying piece of shit.
I’d like to comment on the prosecutor’s decision not to allow lesser-included offenses instructions. I don’t have all the information in front of me, but it seems to me that if the defendant was arguing self-defense, wouldn’t that be a defense to any lesser charges also? If I shoot you in the head in self defense, it doesn’t matter if you charge me with Murder, manslaughter, or simple battery, self defense is self-defense. In Texas, IIRC, criminal homicide is either murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide. I’m not a whiz at Texas law, but it seems to me that self-defense would cover all those charges. If Durst really did act in self defense (excuse me a moment while I laugh myself silly), he should be acquitted of the homicide charge. Allowing lesser included offenses in that case would only serve to allow the jury to split the difference and not make a finding based on the truth. Isn’t that what you want, a finding based on the truth.
Of course, I could be completely wrong about Texas law, and I’m sure minty will come along and upbraid me if I am, but I think those posters railing against the prosecution are advocating that a jury make a finding based on something less than reasonable doubt. And that isn’t what should happen.