How do you handle self defense cases where self defense isn't just a hail Mary, but actually supported?
Curious how different offices handle these cases and what factors contribute to the outcome proposes for a plea deal or absolutely trial?
Especially for a shooting. Of course every case is different, but what factors make it a good or bad self defense case?
Since proving a negative is obviously more of an uphill battle than just whether or not they did it.
If victim shot back or hit defendant?
If defendant has no criminal history?
Stand your ground state?
Bullet trajectory?
No witness or witnesses caught in a lie ( favoring defense)?
Random encounter or prior relationship? If prior relationship surprise visit vs calling ahead?
Victim doesn't talk or victim talks but partially or completely implicates themselves?
Defendant out on bail with no violations vs in custody.
Media attention vs no media attention
How do you determine who shot first? Is this always necessarily relevant?
How do you handle defense experts such as a use of force or ballistics expert? Do you have a police officer with experience testify to argue against? What if police officer or state witness favors self defense?
I feel some police and DAs have a policy written or unwritten to charge someone no matter what in shootings to show they're handling violent crime. Most offices won't backtrack if they think later the other party was actually the bad actor. A lot of line DAs don't get discretion without supervisor sign off. Busy office vs rural office and trial availably and costs. Are sometimes these messy cases pushed to trial to let the jury decide because it's messy and so outcome is entirely on the jury?