English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

se which element would the defense have difficulty proving in the following hypothetical? Why?

The defendant is leaving a gay bar after having a few drinks. As he is leaving, three men who are outside of the bar threaten to hurt him because of his sexuality. The three men begin to walk towards the defendant and one of them is holding a baseball bat. The defendant is close to the entrance of the bar. The defendant becomes scared and then gets in his car and drives a mile where he stopped by the police and arrested for DUI.

Three independent witnesses see the event and testify that they saw one man holding a bat and he was with two other men. The defendant testifies that he was in fear for his life and he would not have driven but for being chased by the men. The defendant did not have a cell phone on him. His blood alcohol content was .09 at the time of driving which is above the legal limit but he passes his field sobriety tests and is coherent when speaking to the officer. He is charged with driving with .08 or greater of alcohol in his blood system.

2007-12-20 17:40:18 · 3 answers · asked by carol h 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

3 answers

I prosecuted a case like this, a woman claimed that she was charged at by a man with a bat. She gets in her car and drives several blocks, where she is stopped by the police. The Court refused to allow the caljic regarding necessity. She was convicted. I would think the best way to handle this is try and get a plea to a wet reckless or even a dry one.

Now, here he is leaving by himself, under the influence, and going......where? To the bus, did he call a cab? Is it unreasonable to believe that he planned to drive? How independent were the witnesses? Were they at the bar. Did they ever know the defendant? And why did the bat wild guys not go after the other three gay men?

2007-12-20 18:06:56 · answer #1 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 1 0

Those are not jury instructions, they're a summary of events.

But looking at the summary, the big challenge for the defense attorney is explaining why the defendent didn't retreat to the safety of the bar, since he was close to the entrance.

2007-12-21 01:46:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

don't ask don't tell......probably a few marines in that bar........try this situation. a homosexual goes to a bar. being unlucky in love and after a few drinks he gets in his car and goes home to watch porn and jack off....nobody threatens him...being drunk and stupid he knowingly gets behind the wheel of 2 tons of steel. he should have taking an a-ss beating.

2007-12-21 10:00:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers