Jury acquits bail agent for murdering a guy

I don't get it. Did the guy somehow know she was keeping a gun in the drawer of her desk? If not, how the fuck would he have reached for it. Considering she shot him in the back I highly doubt anything like that occurred.
 
Can we get a lawyer in here explain why prosecutors can’t ask for murder 1 AND murder 2 in the alternative or a further man 1 in the alternative? What kind of crazy system is this?

Murder 1 implies "cool reflection," planning and then executing the plan. Essentially. And generically speaking.
 
Not a lawyer, but it has to do with the concept of double jeopardy, I believe. You cannot be charged for the same crime twice. The reasoning behind this is that it forces the prosecution to actually put in the work to make the case they best think they can. Otherwise the prosecution could just keep piling on different degrees for each offense, knowing at least one will stick, rather than put in the effort to make their case for why any one given charge fits. Our system is specifically designed to be harder on the prosecution than the defense. Any actual lawyers are free to correct, or edit this.

Fb lawyer here... I submit to you a writ of habeas corpus. And plead insanity
 
Murder 1 implies "cool reflection," planning and then executing the plan. Essentially. And generically speaking.

I don't even understand how they could think Murder 1 applied here. They thought she planned all this out? Makes no sense.
 
If anybody watches the video in the OP they will realize without a doubt that this women murderer this guy for absolutely no reason at all.

How the hell was she acquitted? What a backwards set of laws we have in place.



Why does he take his shoe off in someone's office?

That's so weird...
 
well, at least its not the cops getting away with murder this time. here we have a bail agent pretty clearly just murder someone.

Prosecutors Monday released video of a Stillwater bail agent fatally shooting one of her clients last year at her office.

Chasity Dawn Carey was charged with first-degree murder after the shooting. On Friday, Payne County jurors acquitted Carey, 42, of Drumright, in the Aug. 9 shooting.



At trial, Carey testified she shot the client, Brandon James Williams, 38, of Stillwater, in self-defense. She and her 19-year-old son, Justin Henderson, were attempting to take Williams, who was free on bail, back into custody at the time.

(Story continued below...)
Carey testified Williams attempted to grab her gun before fleeing out her office window. She said she beat Williams to the gun and turned to fire just as he was going out the window. She shot Williams in the back.



i am all for the second amendment, but am definitely coming around on us needing major reforms. this woman has no business at all having one. at least not using it in the line of duty. she really needs a new line of work. it was not self defense.



http://m.newsok.com/article/5586793...m&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NIC-Facebook


Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see him go for the drawer with the gun or grab for it after she pulled it.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see him go for the drawer with the gun or grab for it after she pulled it.
i didnt either. in fact, although he was moving quickly and erratically, he wasnt really moving in a way that felt threatening at all. of course he is big, she is a woman and its close quarters, but it didnt come off from viewing it as overly threatening. and i certainly never saw him go for the gun (as if he knew where it was). you can see the curtains on the window fly out (meaning he just went out the window) well before she went for that gun.

not a lawyer, but is it double jeopardy to charge with 2nd degree murder if you fail to prosecute on 1st? and who would go for first anyway? that is pretty cut and dry 2nd degree murder
 
I hope this guy has loved ones so they can sue her in civil court.
 
Yeah that was pretty fucking murdery.
 
That dude never went for the gun at all.

The DA fucked up but that woman belongs behind bars.
 
I don't get the point of aiming high is though? Doesn't it look bad if you lose the case?

I'm not an expert... But I've seen it plenty of times

Happened to a co-worker of mine after he was cleared by our dept AND the fbi
 
i didnt either. in fact, although he was moving quickly and erratically, he wasnt really moving in a way that felt threatening at all. of course he is big, she is a woman and its close quarters, but it didnt come off from viewing it as overly threatening. and i certainly never saw him go for the gun (as if he knew where it was). you can see the curtains on the window fly out (meaning he just went out the window) well before she went for that gun.

not a lawyer, but is it double jeopardy to charge with 2nd degree murder if you fail to prosecute on 1st? and who would go for first anyway? that is pretty cut and dry 2nd degree murder

No lawyer either, but you can't go back and charge them for the same crime using a different charge.

On tv they always have "on the 1st count of the indictment" and "on the 2nd count" when they read the verdicts so I'm wonder why they didn't include the lesser charge to begin with.
 
I don't get the point of aiming high is though? Doesn't it look bad if you lose the case?

My wife sat on a jury where the guy was charged with kidnapping - which he clearly didn't do and she said the whole jury was saying they'd like to convict, but he didn't do that.

They could have charged him with battery, domestic violence, D&D, etc., but they went with kidnapping for forcibly removing his ex from his house.
 
Murder 1 implies "cool reflection," planning and then executing the plan. Essentially. And generically speaking.
Yes I get that. But I don’t get why they can’t charge murder 1 and then say man 1 in the alternative.

I don’t see how that violates the double jeopardy principle as you say to a jury “this is what you have to determine for murder 1”, “if you don’t convict for murder 1, then this is what you determine for man 1....”

I don’t really get why it can’t be that way but that’s cool.
 
Yes I get that. But I don’t get why they can’t charge murder 1 and then say man 1 in the alternative.

I don’t see how that violates the double jeopardy principle as you say to a jury “this is what you have to determine for murder 1”, “if you don’t convict for murder 1, then this is what you determine for man 1....”

I don’t really get why it can’t be that way but that’s cool.

There are a couple of lawyers on here that can better explain it ... I only play one on fb
 
They clearly overcharged to let her go scots free.

She is a murderer.
 
Back
Top