I don't understand this. I think all the police interviews should be evidence automatically.
pros. needed to spell things out more, i didnt hear something like the following nearly enough in there;
"so you fired because you were in fear for your life, that is your testimony?"
- yes he had a gun and threatened me
"but isnt it true sir that there never was a gun in that car?"
- they left the scen, police didnt search
"was there a gun introduced into evidence in this case? did anyone else testify to seeing a gun at the crime scene? did your defense present anyone that claimed to have seen the deceased with a gun?"
- objection (lol)
"so the only evidence this jury has that the deceased had a gun is your testimony, is that correct? that you saw someone bend over and then from inside your car which you claim was much lower than the other vehicle, at night, in a panicked state, in fear for your life, you saw 4 inches of what you believed to be a shotgun barrel... or a stick? is that correct sir?"
Great list, but shouldn't there be something in there about what an amazingly responsible and loving dog owner he is?:banghead:Dunn's self-defense defense is that:
1. There WAS a gun.
2. LE was sloppy in not finding the gun.
3. He had "tunnel vision," PTSD, etc., etc., and was protecting the love of his life.
Repeat 30 or 40 times at every chance and, voila!, not guilty.
Snipped from the link:
After the defense has presented its case, the party with the burden has an opportunity for rebuttal. Such rebuttal may be of a substantive nature or it may relate to the credibility of defense witnesses. When of a substantive nature, the proof cannot be repetitive of the case in chief: it must specifically rebut some claim in the defenses case. For example, if the defendant in a criminal case testifies as to an alibi, the prosecution in rebuttal cannot call additional eye witnesses to the crime to testify as to the defendants presence. The prosecution may, however, if the defendant presented proof that the defendant was in a distant city on the day of the crime, present proof that the defendant was in the city where the crime occurred on the date of the crime.
This question has bugged me for a while now. If someone shoots a gun in a public area, is there no legal duty to call police to report it? Wouldn't it be logical to assume someone will call and police will be out to investigate such a shooting and be looking for the shooter?