07-12-2013, 03:54 PM
(07-12-2013, 03:04 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(07-12-2013, 02:53 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, if I had it, I'd bet money against a Murder 2 verdict.
Near the end of jury instructions, Nelson went over justifiable use of deadly force (not sure of the statute number though).
Before O'mara's closing, I'd have thought 2nd Degree Murder would have been a Skittle supporter fantasy.
Not now.
As to Nelson's jury instructions, I'll need to read a transcript as I didn't hear any of 776.
I now understand Dan Abram's point in his article: Self-defense law and SYG are NOT synonymous.
The State wanted the initial aggressor statute included in the jury instructions. The Judge *denied* without giving a reason other than the defense doesn't want it, so I'm not giving it. So in that way, Abrams was right. I just still believe that it should have been included, but the State got that part across very well and the instruction may have just further confounded the issue.
But the "SYG" statute was given to the jury, no two ways about it. As the law to be considered during deliberations.