Should witness testimony be disregarded if it conflicts with self-defense claim for a murder trial?

[Steophan]

@Ravenman

So in this case, the “potential bias” of each of the witnesses was clearly different. One set of witnesses might have had a grudge to frame two rival gang members. The other witness was also probably hated by the first two witnesses for being part of that rival gang and he was ratting on his co-conspirators. And yet, their testimony didn’t have any substantive differences. They were consistent in all significant details. But you’re saying that the mere potential of bias - rather than the jury’s judgement that their testimony was untrue - ought to mean the jury should throw out their testimony.

In order for their stories to be factually false but their testimony to be consistent, these three witnesses would have had to conspire to get their stories straight. That would mean a Federal prisoner would have had to reach out to two rival gang members to coordinate stories. Or, the police and prosecutors would have had to conspire to direct them what to say. While those are theoretical possibilities, the odds of either one being the case is not plausible.

Indeed, your view of how the jury ought to have ruled relies on a conspiracy theory without any foundation - that two rival gangs were brought together to coordinate testimony, perhaps with the assistance of the government, leading to the jury being directed to acquit, otherwise an appeal court would overturn the jury’s view of the evidence.

This idea that potential for bias trumps the jury’s ability to draw conclusions on the reliability of testimony is outrageous. Any good defense attorney can find some way to allege potential bias in a witness, but a jury out to be able to decide whether that lawyer is blowing smoke or if the witness is indeed lying. And let me tell you, one of the lawyers in this case was very, very good. His ability to turn straightforward testimony (“On this night those two non-masked men put guns in our faces, held us captive for 20 minutes, and we knew their names from being around the neighborhood”) into reasonable doubt was much more convincing than anything you’ve tried to argue here.

The standard is that the jury should have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. With the further evidence you’ve provided, it looks like that standard may have been reached.

If there’s no reasonable scenario other than the defendant’s guilt that the two parties could have given consistent testimony, then one can conclude guilt. If the witnesses were truly independent that would be the case.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that, despite there being reasonable doubt about individual pieces of evidence, they could combine in such a way as to provide a case that is sufficiently strong as to be beyond reasonable doubt.

So, if I were convinced in this case that the witnesses were independent, it’s possible I would consider that they corroborated each other, and so my objection would not hold.

Thankyou, by the way, for providing an interesting and relevant example. It’s given me much to think about. I don’t think it invalidates my entire view, but somewhat expands what I would consider corroboaration

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

That’s what I want to do – I’m interested in talking about the Dunn case. It’s a real, possible topic of discussion, and part of the OP.

I’ve repeatedly told you what I think about the Dunn case. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that he did not act in self defence to convict him. You repeatedly bringing up evidence that I’ve already stated is not, in my opinion, sufficient, is not particularly interesting.

Your claim in the OP that I believe that the jury should disregard all witness testimony because Dunn claimed self defence, on the other hand, is interesting. Not least because it’s false, and despite my repeated clarifications of my position you have yet to either retract your claim or discuss my actual position.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

In order for their stories to be factually false but their testimony to be consistent, these three witnesses would have had to conspire to get their stories straight. That would mean a Federal prisoner would have had to reach out to two rival gang members to coordinate stories. Or, the police and prosecutors would have had to conspire to direct them what to say. While those are theoretical possibilities, the odds of either one being the case is not plausible.

Indeed, your view of how the jury ought to have ruled relies on a conspiracy theory without any foundation - that two rival gangs were brought together to coordinate testimony, perhaps with the assistance of the government, leading to the jury being directed to acquit, otherwise an appeal court would overturn the jury’s view of the evidence.

I don’t find the notion that the police and prosecutors can shape the testimony of biased defendents to fit their view of what happened to be remarkable at all. Your use of the word “conspiracy” gives it a far-fetched color, but it’s not a conspiracy. From what I understand of police interrogations their goal is frequently to badger or trick the witness into saying what they (the police) think actually happened, and it would be natural for them to guide all witness stories in the same direction. So if you had a bunch of biased witnesses who were all predisposed to frame someone, it wouldn’t be difficult for police to feed them all the same details and have them all testify to the same version.

[Though FTR, I think steophan’s position is a bit extreme, and I think you need to consider each case on it’s own, and a jury can decide that based on the totality of the testimony they find it compelling despite the bias in a given case.]

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

I’ve repeatedly told you what I think about the Dunn case. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that he did not act in self defence to convict him. You repeatedly bringing up evidence that I’ve already stated is not, in my opinion, sufficient, is not particularly interesting.

I’m not talking about sufficient – I’m talking about corroborating. The bullet holes in the SUV corroborate the witness testimony, but they do not corroborate Dunn’s story.

Your claim in the OP that I believe that the jury should disregard all witness testimony because Dunn claimed self defence, on the other hand, is interesting. Not least because it’s false, and despite my repeated clarifications of my position you have yet to either retract your claim or discuss my actual position.

I know you’ve said this, and I may have stated your philosophy wrong, but the way you apply it to the Dunn case includes corroborated evidence. You say “I’m only talking about cases in which the testimony is uncorroborated”, but then you apply it to the Dunn case, which directly and factually conflicts with your philosophy.

[Ravenman]

@Steophan

With the further evidence you’ve provided, it looks like that standard may have been reached.

I didn’t provide any new evidence; I just explained my own biased thought process. Which you happily took under consideration, I might add.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that, despite there being reasonable doubt about individual pieces of evidence, they could combine in such a way as to provide a case that is sufficiently strong as to be beyond reasonable doubt.

But as someone else noted, each bit of evidence in a trial isn’t evaluated to the standard of reasonable doubt. Maybe this is where your view is diverging from everyone else’s. Jurors are free to believe all, none, or select parts of a witness’ testimony. If I said that I had caviar and champagne for breakfast this morning, you would be free to judge my testimony as truthful that I had breakfast, but untruthful that I had caviar. AFAIK, there’s no legal principle that you are to disregard or discount my testimony because you might have a reasonable doubt as to my overall honesty.

Thankyou, by the way, for providing an interesting and relevant example. It’s given me much to think about. I don’t think it invalidates my entire view, but somewhat expands what I would consider corroboaration

You might also consider that untruthful or unreliable statements can also assist a juror in coming to his own conclusion in a case. For example, let’s take the murder case I mentioned. Imagine if one of the defendants testified and couldn’t answer questions about where he was that night. It is not reasonable to say that his poor, most likely untrue testimony would actually corroborate what the other witnesses said in pinning the crime on him, because he’s telling a different story.

But if faced with a case with no significant physical evidence, consistent testimony of three eyewitnesses with different but possibly real biases, and the contradictory but poor testimony of a defendant, I think most reasonable people would see a pretty clear picture emerging. The issue is that under your view that testimony should be subject to a very high level of scrutiny, otherwise is ought to be discounted, juries would be directed to disregard whatever clear picture they may believe is the truth.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t find the notion that the police and prosecutors can shape the testimony of biased defendents to fit their view of what happened to be remarkable at all. Your use of the word “conspiracy” gives it a far-fetched color, but it’s not a conspiracy.

I disagree. In this case I think it is the textbook definition of conspiracy: that the government had a plot that was never meant to be discovered to compel various people to commit perjury so the government could convict supposedly innocent people.

I have no doubt that prosecutors, as well as defense attorneys, do indeed shape testimony, most likely to make the evidence more effective. But I do not think that it is routine practice to orchestrate the fabrication of testimony from several witnesses.

[D_Anconia]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

You think he’s lying? Autocorrect makes some weird choices based on past patterns. In fact my ipad routinely changes “good” into “food”. Good isn’t even spelled wrong!

No, I am not accusing anyone of lying. But “good” and “food” are both English words, whereas “hi use”, is not. Why would the programmers of whatever auto-correct he’s using substitute non-words for real words?

[iiandyiiii]

I posted this question in the Pit thread, but it probably fits better in this discussion, since it’s directly about the philosophy being discussed:

Suppose my “party scenario murder” happens (regarding my belief that Steophan’s philosophy would make it trivially easy to arrange a murder and get away with it): The killer wants to kill a co-worker he doesn’t like. He invites this co-worker to a party, ostensibly to “break the ice” and be friends, along with several friends of the co-worker. At the party, in his own house, the killer shoots the deceased as soon as he walks in the door, in the chest, and the witnesses are the deceased’s friends and family – 15 of them at the party. After the shooting they all flee and call the police outside the killer’s house. The killer claims the deceased had a gun and was aiming it at him, and his lawyers suggest the victim’s friends picked up the gun and disposed of it as they fled. The witnesses all deny the deceased had a gun or did anything threatening.

The evidence is as follows: the killer admits he killed the deceased, but claims the deceased had a gun and aimed it at him. There is no physical evidence of this gun in the house or elsewhere, and no record of the deceased owning or acquiring a gun. There are 15 witnesses, all friends of the deceased, and they all tell the same story – the deceased walked in the door and was immediately shot in the chest by the killer after the party started. The party was alcohol free. No one tests positive for any drugs or alcohol.

What should the jury do?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@D_Anconia

No, I am not accusing anyone of lying. But “good” and “food” are both English words, whereas “hi use”, is not. Why would the programmers of whatever auto-correct he’s using substitute non-words for real words?

hi and use are both english words. It’s like when I type “Iam” and it corrects it to “I am”. It doesn’t interpret the syntax but converted the mistake into two words that might have been squished together.

[CoastalMaineiac]

@Steophan

That’s all there is to say about it. If the testimony could be biased, there is reasonable doubt of guilt.

Since when did biased come to mean untrue?

[D_Anconia]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

hi and use are both english words. It’s like when I type “Iam” and it corrects it to “I am”. It doesn’t interpret the syntax but converted the mistake into two words that might have been squished together.

Fine. I concede.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@D_Anconia

Fine. I concede.

YES!

Spikes ball.

I WIN!!!

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

I disagree. In this case I think it is the textbook definition of conspiracy: that the government had a plot that was never meant to be discovered to compel various people to commit perjury so the government could convict supposedly innocent people.

Not a “plot” and not “to commit perjury”. Reread what I wrote.

[Ravenman]

I read it. I stand by what I wrote.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I find I’m okay with Dunn no longer out in public carrying firearms, for some reason.