If You Were On the Jury...?

Question

So, here's the story as short as I can make it. My friend has been in jail for five years awaiting trial for the murder of his father and his step-mother. They treated him like a slave at home, and they sexually abused him and his sister. He shot them when he was 16, then took a cell phone and car to his friend's house and told his friend (and me) that they had kicked him out and told him not to come back. He stuck to this story for two weeks, until the bodies were found and he was arrested at my house. So, if you were on the jury, what would your verdict be? Guilty, Not Guilty, or Insane (I think they are going to have him plea insanity). I'll be a witness at the actual trial in a few days, but I wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Answer 1

As a witness you are obligated to uphold the law and to answer all questions asked you truthfully. You seem quite close to him, so this may be difficult for you.

If the story is just as you have told it, and you know these things for facts, and not just from hearsay, then it is homicide. What degree of homicide I don't know.

The circumstances behind the murders might get him some leniency or not.

I cannot understand how someone could be in jail for five hears without a trial. The thing is, in asking for opinions,
you might prejudice your own testimony. If you lie in court you can be put in jail for perjury. So let the courts and the jury decide. No one knows how a jury will react to testimony. And the decision is their responsibility. Not yours.

Your only responsibility is to be as truthful as possible.

I am sure your feelings must be very intense and troubled over this whole thing.

No matter what testimony you give the outcome is not your responsibility or fault and you carry no guilt in the matter.

Don't try to put a spin on your testimony. Be guided by the lawyers in the case. Honor our judicial system and put your trust in God.

Maggie

Answer 2

Guilty as SIN..... he thought about it, DID it, ran from it and lied about it..... 3 strikes your OUT!!! My question would be why the hell has it taken 5 YEARS to start the trial????? Our constitution guarantees us the "right to a speedy trial"... 5 years is not speedy at all.. ....when he was 16, if your state had a law on the book about children committing ADULT crimes (like murder), then they would be tried as ADULTS, then he will be tried and probably convicted and sentenced as an adult..... IF they have taken their time getting it to trial because the lawyers are trying to get him tried as a MINOR, then he's already served 5 years and he MAY even get OUT of jail if he is already 21 or wait until he turns 21.... it all depends on the laws of your state as to how he ends up being tried---as an adult or a minor...... they could TRY to use the insanity plea, but the prosecutor (as well as some of those who answered in this forum) would blast that defence out of the water... I feel badly that the boy felt he had to blow his parents away---what he SHOULD have done was gone to the police or a close relative or social services and been removed with his other sibblings away from his parents....there were OTHER options he could have and SHOULD have taken....

Answer 3

The key factor on my decision would be based upon the quality of the physical evidence. As long as the physical evidence proved he was the onlu one who could have commited the murders I would find him guilty.

However, based on the information I would still find him guilty. It's sad that he and his sister had to endure the abuse, but I also feel that he had other options, that he should have pursued that didn't involve murder.

An insanity pleas won't work either. The fact that he hid out with you and other friends as well as making up a story thay he was kicked out, shows that he knew what he was doing, and it was wrong.

Answer 4

If he actually shot them, he is guilty of homicide. The type of homicide (first-degree murder, manslaughter, etc) would have to be determined by the degree of premeditation involved. Unless there is ample evidence of a serious mental disorder or a great deal of expert testimony saying that he was mentally incapacitated (legally insane) at the time of the crime, the insanity defense is invalid. Most states have a very strict interpretation of "legally insane", so it would be up to the precedent set in your jurisdiction.

Answer 5

you will choose a Florida motive force's license to get suggested as up for jury duty. that's all you're able to do to get interior the device. previous that, you will basically could desire to attend. Jury duty is all a success of the draw. some human beings could desire to attend years till now they ever get suggested as up for jury duty.

Answer 6

By what you said, there is still not enough evidence to find him insane. Maybe grieved, but not insane. So just by what you have shown, So far the only thing I see is guilty. Because you said he did it, and he tried to cover it up.

Answer 7

Sounds like something for Boston Legal.

Alan Shore would defend him and he would be found to be not guilty by reason of insanity.

Answer 8

Guilty. He premeditated a murder and then attempted to cover it up after the fact, thereby indicating that he knew it was wrong.

Answer 9

He did it didn't he? He's guilty. But perhaps INSANE too. Either way, he needs to be locked up somewhere.

Answer 10

Guilty, but then agian the parents should have been reported so that he could've been put in some foster care not shoot his parents, I would of reported my own parents or run away