So, in recent events, there was a Perry Mason moment. During the murder trial of accused navy seal Chief Edward Gallagher, a witnessed called to the stand (and given immunity first by the prosecution) confessed to the murder in open court.
So you have a witness, who undeniably was present at the crime, had the means and motive to commit the murder, and who just confessed to committing it under oath. Also, you have an explanation for why the witness didn’t make this statement earlier - they are admitting to committing a murder, and would not admit this until the immunity deal is signed.
To me this sounds like the case should basically just end, the same way an NFL game ends the moment the score is in one team’s favor and they have the ball with less time left on the clock than the kneeling timer.
How can you say you’re holding a fair trial if you keep the defendant still in jeopardy? If this isn’t reasonable doubt, what is? (sure, maybe the witness is lying, but if “reasonable” is even a 5-10% chance that the defendant isn’t guilty, this sure appears to qualify)
It depends if the jury believes him, or at least thinks it’s reasonable. However, of the jury doesn’t believe him and rejects his testimony, then they could still find the accused guilty.
The defense could move for a directed verdict, or the court could make that order sua sponte, but the judge could also find the jury should assess this witness’s credibility in reaching their verdict.
The flaw with that is what rational trier of fact can just “disbelieve” a direct eyewitness confessing to the murder with a plausible story.
Sure, there’s likely some weak points to the witness’s story. And maybe as a juror you’d want it not to be true, so you can convict the guy. But to find beyond a reasonable doubt you would have to establish it is “unreasonable” to think the sworn testimony and open court confession of someone who the facts show was on the scene and could have committed the murder could possibly be true.
Well, you might disbelieve it on the basis of other evidence - e.g. forensic evidence which contradicts his claims about how he committed the murder. A rational juror might well believe that (a) the guy has immunity himself, and (b) is highly motivated to exculpate the defendant, so why wouldn’t he lie about this? And if there is other compelling evidence to suggest that, yeah, he is lying, then a rational juror might suggest that his attempts to save his friend are not enough to raise a reasonable doubt.
And this could be evidence yet to be led so, at the very least, the judge will allow the prosecution to complete presenting its case, if it wants to, before rulilng on whether there is a case on which the jury could convict.
But, yeah, realistically this is a big hurdle for the prosecution. The fake-confession-to-save-a-friend-refuted-by-other-evidence is a stock device in TV shows (where it nearly always turns out that the friend is innocent anyway), but here in the real world the prosecution is going to need powerful evidence that the witness is perjuring himself before his claims can’t be said to raise even a reasonable doubt.
In this case, a medic claimed he suffocated a child after the defendant stabbed him. There is a lot of corroborating testimony about the defendant and his proclivities towards enemy combatants and civilians, including children. The medic’s testimony also contradicts other eye witness testimony. Reasonable doubt is not clear cut in this case.
Because all evidence of witnesses turns on whether they are believed in whole or on part, or disbelieved in whole or in part, or some mixture.
We can’t say in the abstract that anyone testifying to having killed some one should be believed. Do they have a mental health issue? Do they have a reason to take the fall for the accused? If one of Gotti’s “associates” testified that he did it, not Gotti, should the jurors believe him?
The jurors base their decision on the testimony of the witnesses, not in the abstract, but as living breathing people telling their stories in court. They have to consider the stories in context. Which is more believable?
IMNAL or judge, but I do interact with the legal system in a a professional capacity, including giving testimony in court. My understanding is that a trial is a process, and any one witness testimony, regardless of what it contains, is just one element in that process. In the football analogy, testimony like you describe is more like a team having a humongous lead going into halftime, rather than a lead (big or small) in the waning seconds. Just like the game has to be played out regardless of how likely the outcome seems to be, the trial, or due process, must play out (notwithstanding something like in post #3, but that is also part of the process, kind of like a TKO in boxing).
That said, the jury could sill find the accused guilty. Either by deciding the counter testimony is not credible, as said upthread, or by by deciding even if Scott did plug the victim’s breathing tube, Gallagher had already inflicted fatal or mortal wounds, and so really is the one who should be held responsible for the death. Also, the jury may have an option to convict the accused of a lesser charge, so even if Scott’s testimony all but takes murder (or whatever the specific charge is) off the table, the trial needs to go on to allow the jury to determine if a lesser charge still applies, and if the accused is guilty.
Because the Chief’s illegal and immoral stabbing led to the medic’s mercy killing. You left out quite a bit. The kid would have died anyway.
If a criminal shoots a cop , and that cop is sent off in a ambulance in a dying condition, but that ambulance gets into a accident and the cop dies, the criminal is still guilty of murder, not the moron who hit the ambulance accidentally.
Yes. But in this case, the driver testifies he hit the cop first and the cop was dead when he saw the bullets hit. And the driver specifically says there was no blood spraying from the wounds because the cop was already dead.
Maybe the driver is lying. I am just saying I don’t see how a rational trier of fact can conclude the chance the accused is guilty is 10 times or more as likely as this alternate explanation.
It depends on the other evidence. Suppose I am being tried for rape and murder. DNA analysis shows it was my semen in the victim, when I was arrested I had a bloody knife in my pocket with her blood on it, my blood was found on the sheets, there is a fresh cut on my hand, and there is video footage from the pawn shop showing me trying to pawn some of her jewelry.
Now my best friend, who is promised immunity, testifies in court that he did it. Should I be automatically acquitted?
I haven’t been following this, but your claim seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the linked story, which says: “The Navy Seal said that he witnessed Mr Gallagher unexpectedly begin stabbing the teenaged fighter after the two men had stabilised his injuries following an airstrike, but that the stab wounds did not appear to be life-threatening.” and that “Mr Scott said the injured victim may have survived the stabbing, but he decided to plug his air tube with his thumb in the belief that he would be tortured by Iraqi forces if he survived.” (bolding added).
Aside from the fact the football game doesn’t end at that point, but played out until time runs out…
If what you say was actually grounds for reasonable doubt. then what is to stop that from being a defense every time.
Similar to what Shodan said: Say I murdered my wife. During the trail, my best friend gets on the stand an confesses. So I get acquitted. Let’s say even more that the DA prosecutes my friend. What’s to stop my testifying at HIS trial and saying I did it? I’ve been acquitted - I can’t be tried again. So now he has (even more, as it works out) reasonable doubt.
I heard it reported that the SEAL who allegedly stabbed the boy is also being tried for shooting at an unarmed man and woman.
In an aside, I have always found it interesting that military juries often need only 2/3rds to convict unless the death penalty is at stake. I have always wondered how this changes the outcome of courts martial, especially in cases like this.
Different trial I think and not relevant to this one.
I think this SEAL is most likely guilty and most likely a dirtbag. I am just saying though, he should get a fair trial and this recent Perry Mason moment should count as reasonable doubt.
Various other accounts state: no blood at all after the stabbing (dead or dying) and spurting blood after the stabbing (caused serious injury). I think we’d have to be at the trial to really get the full picture.