Which element do you believe would be the most difficult for the defense to prove?

Question

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?

Answer 1

Given the facts stated in your "case" above, what was the women charged with?

This question sure smells like the question asked the other day about the gay guy who was legally drunk when he fled in his car to avoid a mob with a bat?

I would be curious to know the Court and case number you "prosecuted."

Also most lawyers would cite the number of the Caljic Jury Instruction. What is it?

If you were the "prosecutor" and you believed the defendant was justified then why did you bring charges? The DA decides who gets charged with what.

Upon further reading, I notice the defendant is a woman in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph the same defendant is a man.

And I notice that you ask the question: How come the people in the bar didn't go beat up the guys with the bat even though they had not yet committed a battery?

It seems like the drunk gay guys in the bar have a better grasp of the law then you do.

God help us all if you're really a lawyer.

Answer 2

This makes no sense.

What was the woman convicted of? Nothing you say she did would be illegal.

And who's the "he" that's leaving somewhere under the influence? The guy with the bat?

And where the ???? did the "three gay guys" come into the picture?

I assume this is some sort of high school moot court case? You're REALLY going to need to learn to brief a case better than that, though, even for school.

Richard

Answer 3

We know you are not a prosecutor or even a lawyer because if were, you would know that the defense never has to prove anything. Also of course, the question is incoherent so we know you are not a lawyer because of that as well. How about being honest about the question you are asking and maybe you will get some honest answers in return.

Answer 4

How did you get a job in the district attorney's office? No offense, but you aren't stringing thoughts together coherently. It makes me half-think that this is a joke question - is it?