SC officer charged with murder in man's death. Video catches him plant evidence.

[chipbennett]

In this case, a mistrial was the only viable option. The judge screwed the due-process pooch on this case, both in allowing the prosecution to add a lesser, voluntary manslaughter charge after the defense already rested, and in his attempts to keep the jury deliberating after the jury twice indicated a deadlock. Any conviction would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal.

By the way, apparently, the jury was 12-0 NOT GUILTY on the murder charge, and hung, 11-1 GUILTY on the voluntary manslaughter charge. And several (5 or so) were concerned that the voluntary manslaughter charge was permitted to be added.

 

[Fargo]

In this case, a mistrial was the only viable option. The judge screwed the due-process pooch on this case, both in allowing the prosecution to add a lesser, voluntary manslaughter charge after the defense already rested, and in his attempts to keep the jury deliberating after the jury twice indicated a deadlock. Any conviction would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal.

By the way, apparently, the jury was 12-0 NOT GUILTY on the murder charge, and hung, 11-1 GUILTY on the voluntary manslaughter charge. And several (5 or so) were concerned that the voluntary manslaughter charge was permitted to be added.

Wherever you are getting your information, I would say it is very questionable. If there was a 12 0 not guilty then that charge was not mistried and an acquittal would enter. Also, I am unclear how forcing a jury to deliberate constitutes a due process violation. Mistrial is an extreme remedy which courts are obligated to avoid if at all possible.

Plus, the defense agreed to the manslaughter instruction, and almost certainly wanted it. Inherent lesser included offenses are generally always on the table as long as there is a factual basis to support them.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Another lawyer's opinion

Okay, some Real Talk on the Walter Scott SC cop-shoots-fleeing-black-guy case, coming up right now. From a lawyer's perspective...

1st point: cop (Michael Slager) is guilty as sin. Don't even need vid to prove, ballistics would've proved it. He shot unarmed man in back. But the video (shot by kid who, God bless him, just happened to be walking by) shows cop not only murdered Scott, but then planted evidence. Now because we're all purported race/history/law experts, we see hung jury in Scott case, think "Ah, South Carolina...still hatin', I see." But realize: this wasn't evenly hung jury. It was 11-1 FOR CONVICTION. In other words, one moron escaped Voir dire. Blame the prosecutors.

But don't blame the SC attys too much. They had 11 out of twelve ready to rightfully convict. Sometimes a jagoff slips through the cracks. And if that one jagoff enrages you, remember this: unanimous jury verdict for felony crime is the CORE BASIS OF ALL Anglo-American CrimLaw. You might wish the rules were different. Would you in other cases? Don't lie, don't even try. Blackstone's Formulation is genius of our law.

"Better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

We all online think Slager is guilty, system failed in this case. But here's the thing: when a jury is "deadlocked" (note scarequotes) 11-1, state will bring case again. Justice WILL be done. It should. But if you tell me 11-1 deadlock is example of racism, rather than "WTF random idiot" I will disagree. And justice will have its day.

The 12-0 requirement for felony crimes remains a great prudential genius of Anglo-American Common Law. Don't spit on it b/c of today.

 

[phylodog]

"1st point: cop (Michael Slager) is guilty as sin. Don't even need vid to prove, ballistics would've proved it."

That was enough to rule that lawyer's opinion as worthless. He has no interest in fact and is riding his emotions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"1st point: cop (Michael Slager) is guilty as sin. Don't even need vid to prove, ballistics would've proved it."

That was enough to rule that lawyer's opinion as worthless. He has no interest in fact and is riding his emotions.

... In this case, we had video.

Video isn't presenting fact? Do you find Slager not guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter? Is there any situation, knowing what you saw in the video, where that was a good shoot?

And his entire point is about these sorts of cases where you know justice will be served, and you know what happened.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Plus, the defense agreed to the manslaughter instruction, and almost certainly wanted it. Inherent lesser included offenses are generally always on the table as long as there is a factual basis to support them.

Oh, yeah, after that video I would have wanted lesser includeds too.

"1st point: cop (Michael Slager) is guilty as sin. Don't even need vid to prove, ballistics would've proved it."

That was enough to rule that lawyer's opinion as worthless. He has no interest in fact and is riding his emotions.

Yup. "Shot him in the back" is meaningless without context.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In this case, a mistrial was the only viable option. The judge screwed the due-process pooch on this case, both in allowing the prosecution to add a lesser, voluntary manslaughter charge after the defense already rested, and in his attempts to keep the jury deliberating after the jury twice indicated a deadlock. Any conviction would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal.

By the way, apparently, the jury was 12-0 NOT GUILTY on the murder charge, and hung, 11-1 GUILTY on the voluntary manslaughter charge. And several (5 or so) were concerned that the voluntary manslaughter charge was permitted to be added.

Where did you get that? I saw, from the local media, that it was 12-0 guilty... and then apparently minds were changed.

Edit: mea culpa I was looking at the Cincinnati case

 

[Kutnupe14]

... In this case, we had video.

Video isn't presenting fact? Do you find Slager not guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter? Is there any situation, knowing what you saw in the video, where that was a good shoot?

And his entire point is about these sorts of cases where you know justice will be served, and you know what happened.

He'd be walking if that video didn't exist. Heck, it probably would've never even gone to trial.

 

[phylodog]

... In this case, we had video.

Video isn't presenting fact? Do you find Slager not guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter? Is there any situation, knowing what you saw in the video, where that was a good shoot?

And his entire point is about these sorts of cases where you know justice will be served, and you know what happened.

I was making no defense for this officer, nor will I. I was simply commenting on the ignorant comment and apparent belief of the person making the statement. Ballistics showing someone shot in the back are a far cry from proof of much of anything other than where bullets entered the body. Hopefully he's a civil attorney.

 

[chipbennett]

Wherever you are getting your information, I would say it is very questionable. If there was a 12 0 not guilty then that charge was not mistried and an acquittal would enter. Also, I am unclear how forcing a jury to deliberate constitutes a due process violation. Mistrial is an extreme remedy which courts are obligated to avoid if at all possible.

Plus, the defense agreed to the manslaughter instruction, and almost certainly wanted it. Inherent lesser included offenses are generally always on the table as long as there is a factual basis to support them.

It very well could be questionable.

As for forcing the jury to continue deliberation: that comes from SC statutes. The jury twice told the judge that they were deadlocked. Under SC statute, the judge cannot *require* the jury to continue a third time, unless the jury sought a question of law from the judge. In this case, the jury sought no such question after the second deliberation.

 

[chipbennett]

... In this case, we had video.

Video isn't presenting fact? Do you find Slager not guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter? Is there any situation, knowing what you saw in the video, where that was a good shoot?

And his entire point is about these sorts of cases where you know justice will be served, and you know what happened.

Full disclosure: I supported this incident going to trial, and think that a manslaughter conviction would be appropriate, based on what I know of the evidence.

That said: there IS an argument to be made in Slager's defense. Scott, at one point, had gained control of Slager's Taser, and used it against him, in his (Scott's) attempt to resist apprehension in order to continue fleeing. If a reasonable person would conclude that Slager reasonably believed that Scott (a) still had the Taser, and (b) still posed an immediate and serious threat to him (Slager), then the shooting of a fleeing Scott would meet the standard set by Tennessee v Garner.

Now, without having seen the defense presented at trial, I don't see how a reasonable person would draw such a conclusion. And I am extremely troubled by Slager's actions in adulterating the scene by tampering with evidence (i.e. moving the Taser). But at the very least, I can admit that there is some potential ground for Slager to present a plausible defense.

 

[Fargo]

It very well could be questionable.

As for forcing the jury to continue deliberation: that comes from SC statutes. The jury twice told the judge that they were deadlocked. Under SC statute, the judge cannot *require* the jury to continue a third time, unless the jury sought a question of law from the judge. In this case, the jury sought no such question after the second deliberation.

The jury can also continue deliberations after a second deadlock if it expressly or impliedly consents to resuming. The news articles I read said that they did seek additional legal explanation from the judge after the second deadlock.

 

[chipbennett]

The jury can also continue deliberations after a second deadlock if it expressly or impliedly consents to resuming. The news articles I read said that they did seek additional legal explanation from the judge after the second deadlock.

Actually, no. They said, "Hey, Judge? We're deadlocked." The judge then sent them back to deliberate again. *After* he sent them back to deliberate, *he* asked *them* if they had any additional questions of law for him.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Full disclosure: I supported this incident going to trial, and think that a manslaughter conviction would be appropriate, based on what I know of the evidence.

That said: there IS an argument to be made in Slager's defense. Scott, at one point, had gained control of Slager's Taser, and used it against him, in his (Scott's) attempt to resist apprehension in order to continue fleeing. If a reasonable person would conclude that Slager reasonably believed that Scott (a) still had the Taser, and (b) still posed an immediate and serious threat to him (Slager), then the shooting of a fleeing Scott would meet the standard set by Tennessee v Garner.

Now, without having seen the defense presented at trial, I don't see how a reasonable person would draw such a conclusion. And I am extremely troubled by Slager's actions in adulterating the scene by tampering with evidence (i.e. moving the Taser). But at the very least, I can admit that there is some potential ground for Slager to present a plausible defense.

You could argue that, but the problem is those facts come from Slager, himself, whose credibility was severely diminished due the his actions and words. I would wonder, how reasonable a person is, that believed a guy running away, was a imminent threat to anyone.

 

[chipbennett]

You could argue that, but the problem is those facts come from Slager, himself, whose credibility was severely diminished due the his actions and words. I would wonder, how reasonable a person is, that believed a guy running away, was a imminent threat to anyone.

Like I said: I don't see how one could draw such a conclusion that his actions were reasonable. But, I didn't pay any attention to the trial. I have no idea what case the defense presented. Based on what I know, I think manslaughter is appropriate. The killing was unjust, but not malicious.

 

[KLB]

Has anyone heard of this?
Frame 394: Toronto Man Gets Drawn Into High-Profile American Police Shooting Case - Short Docs - CBC-TV

The video
[video=youtube;GZSb00oSzuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSb00oSzuY&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[phylodog]

Weird. It's almost as if cameras don't necessarily tell the entire story as most incorrectly believe.

Posted a little over a year ago:

The biggest issue is that once video footage is entered into evidence, anything and everything else takes a distant second place.

Cameras see/record much differently than our eyes do. They don't have a binocular view so there is little to no depth perception, the fish eye lenses of some cameras really distort distances. Cameras do not experience looming, they do not judge speed and they do not experience stress induced tunnel vision.

These cameras cannot track a moving target like our eyes can. Our eyes move with a moving target which allows us to maintain sharp focus on a specific object in motion. Cameras don't have this ability and a still or slow moving camera will show a quickly moving target as blurry. We can also focus our vision while we are moving at high speed, cameras cannot. In this instance our eyes are better than cameras.

As humans, we have a very small area of fine focus. Most video cameras have a very broad area which is in focus. What this means is there is a huge difference between what the camera footage will show in clear focus and what the person wearing it was focused on. Just because the camera and the wearer were facing the same direction, it does not mean the person wearing it was focused on the particular item of interest. We only have around 2° of fine visual acuity (sharp focus). Once you get out beyond 20° from this we can pick some things up but our "vision" meets the standard for legal blindness. The camera focuses on everything at once (160° in this instance).

The OP mentioned IR capabilities. His eyes don't have that benefit. What happens when the camera sees/records something that he was unable to see (home intruder dropping their weapon)? Is a jury going to believe his words or what they saw on the video?

We don't get the benefit of replaying what we see over and over to make a judgement or a decision. Every time a jury member gets to watch a video they get to gather more and more information. Much of that information isn't available to the person wearing the camera at that moment.

We have the ability to see a lot of things around us by turning our heads, a body mounted camera will not pick up what we see when this occurs.

Those are some of the issues off the top of my head. I'm not saying cameras are a bad thing but they should be used with caution and as a private citizen wearing one, the footage should not be released with the approval of a good attorney. It is my opinion that video footage introduced during civil or criminal trials should be prefaced with a thorough explanation of the differences between what we see and what cameras see but that's a pipe dream.

 

[KJQ6945]

Weird. It's almost as if cameras don't necessarily tell the entire story as most incorrectly believe.

Posted a little over a year ago:

If we only had an eyewitness, they are infallible.

Well said Phylo!

 

[Route 45]

Lots of asshats make onto PDs.

Yes, indeed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Slager pleads guilty.