Or more accurately, it is more prejudicial than it is relevant and therefore greater harm will befall the justice system if it comes in versus being left out. A picture of me committing a murder is horribly prejudicial to my case. But its relevance and probative value outweighs that prejudice.
Yes, I think that a woman previously convicted of being a drug mule is likely guilty this time of being a drug mule. The fact that she did it once shows that she is the type of person to be a drug mule and that makes her more likely that someone in the general population to be a drug mule. It is very relevant.
But see how I (as a hypothetical juror) have almost already convicted her without hearing a shred of evidence about the current case? I have prejudged her guilt (or started down that path). She is entitled to be judged on what she did this time around.
Therefore this conviction is more prejudicial to her than it is relevant for me to make up my mind. Toss it.
The smartest thing a truly innocent person could do is shut up and refuse to talk to the police, or the prosecutor, until they’d spoken to a lawyer and had a lawyer present. Not one word. There is absolutely no possible way talking to the cops can help someone accused of a crime. None.
Not protesting one’s innocence to the prosecution (or police) isn’t a sign of guilt, it’s a sign of intelligence.
Ask any defense lawyer (I’m not any kind of lawyer).
Just came in that the man was convicted of second degree murder and faces life in prison. While I agree with most everything said in this thread, I cannot help but feel for the defendant as well.
It is not like he was out looking for trouble.
If the victim (who had a blood alcohol level 2x the limit) had crashed her car 5 minutes earlier or later (or not crashed at all) she might have pounded on another door in those early morning hours and two lives would be spared.
Guy have been stupid and reckless and maybe deserves this punishment for taking a life but he was minding his own business and sleeping up to that moment.
Exactly. A person who once sold drugs to a friend, for example, does not indicate that he would be more or less likely to throw a party and provide alcohol to under-age drinkers. If his prior offense did not involve alcohol or “contributing to the delinquency”, how is it relevant except in the general course of “this guy was a bad boy, so he must still be a bad boy.” It does not in any way prove the facts of the case.
Just as in the porch shooting, something the shooter could not possibly know about the victim in no way excuses a “shoot first” mentality. If you own and have a gun handy, it is your responsibility to use it ONLY when you are threatened with bodily harm - it has to be an appropriate response.
The guy claimed to not have a landline, RNATB. Plus, he also claimed that he was so scared by the racket outside that he immediately turned off whatever lights he had on. This didn’t help him of course, when he was stumbling around in the dark looking for his cell phone…and his shotgun.
I think he had a decent chance at only getting popped for manslaughter. Despite Bricker’s breaking down the difference between Murder 2 and Manslaughter in MI, there’s a statute also in their Homicide section that I think’s a better fit for what this idiot did: MCL [section, I can never remember the unicode for the law “S”] 750.329,
Whatever he testified to, I don’t think the idiot actually had malice, even implied malice, when he shot Ms. McBride.
What I think actually happened is that he opened the door, got startled when he saw Ms. McBride, jerked in reflex, which, when you’re stupid enough to have your finger near the trigger, means the gun goes off. And when it’s pointed at her, because we move our hands in the same direction our head moves, means he shot her. FWIW, I think he shot her through the screen door. Which would be manslaughter. A felony, an accident, but not murder.
Then he realized he screwed up, and starting babbling anything to lessen his feeling of guilt, “I didn’t know it was loaded!”, which didn’t help later in court when he had to explain his continually changing story. Or try for some longshot justification defense during the trial which required that the shooting be intentional. Oh well, when you wager double or nothing, you sometimes end up with nothing. If he was going to do that, go all the way and stick with the story that there was so much noise that there had to be more people than just her out there. Maybe then they’d have had a sliver of a shot of getting into evidence the McBride selfies with the weed and pistol.
Meh, he’s going to jail for awhile. Good result, whatever crime it ends up being called.
Turns out, if you’re minding your own business asleep at home, and someone pounds on your door in the middle of the night, and you shoot them dead on your porch, that isn’t self defense. You’re not allowed to shoot people just because you’re scared and confused.