g****k
发帖数: 417 | 1 Commonwealth v. Kenneth Waters
399 Mass. 708
Waters was arrested and charged with murder and robbery, tried and
convicted of both crimes. Evidence was based on crime scene photos, a
knife retrieved from trash, and witness statements.
Main focus is on Kenneth Waters’ appeal in court
Waters appealed charging that the trial judge committed 4 reversible
errors: voir dire, jury instructions, admission of evidence, and
denial of defense motions.
引用Lexis Nexis里的一段：
“The defendant argues that the judge erred in failing to instruct the
jury that intoxication may render a statement involuntary. The
defendant did not object to the judge's instructions, nor did he
request further instructions on this issue. Therefore, the standard of
review is whether the jury charge [*715] was so erroneous that it
created a 'substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.’ ”
其他background info: Waters admitted to two former girlfriends Marsh
and Perry several weeks after murder incident occurred, Waters was
drunk, and stated that he had killed the “ …(referring to the victim)”
嫌看得太麻烦的：故事基本就是被告在喝醉后曾向女友承认杀了被害人，在女友证词和
各种证据
后，被判谋杀罪名成立，提起上诉，其中一项如下
Q: The judge failed to instruct the jury properly on voluntariness
A. What is the law on this issue?
B. Is it state law or federal?
C. What was the ruling of the court?
D. What was the reason given by the court for this ruling?
E. What case law (if any) did the court cite?
可能理解能力有限，对jury instruction 的A和B不清楚
不知道问题里的 “law on this issue” 是要解释law on voluntariness 还是on
failure to instruct jury。因为在voir dire里已经可以很清楚地解释
voluntariness, 不管是due process of the fifth还是commonwealth v. allen的
case law都不在考虑范围内。Due process要求有police involvement and
coercion, case law发生在这个案件之后而且不是retroactive.
如果是问law on failing to instruct jury，由于审理时被告没有提出反对，是不是
要针
对plain error standard of review来解释呢？还是具体解释substantial risk of
a miscarriage of justice？对这个不熟悉，求高人指教 | a**********m
发帖数: 2098 | 2 不是高人，仅表达一下个人见解，切磋一下。
我觉得issue是What is the standard of review on appeal on jury instructions w
here the defendant failed to object to the judge's instructions of an issue
or to request further instructions on the issue at trial?
Court's holding -- SoR is clearly erroenous ("so erroneous that it created a
'substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice'")
Plain error SoR is standard while "substantial risk of a miscarriage of
justi
ce" is a test. You apply the test with reasoning process to explain whether
the standard is satisfied. If yes, then the trial court decision should be o
verruled.
【在 g****k 的大作中提到】
: Commonwealth v. Kenneth Waters
: 399 Mass. 708
: Waters was arrested and charged with murder and robbery, tried and
: convicted of both crimes. Evidence was based on crime scene photos, a
: knife retrieved from trash, and witness statements.
: Main focus is on Kenneth Waters’ appeal in court
: Waters appealed charging that the trial judge committed 4 reversible
: errors: voir dire, jury instructions, admission of evidence, and
: denial of defense motions.
: 引用Lexis Nexis里的一段：
| g****k
发帖数: 417 | 3 我也倾向于问的是SoR，不过另一个帖子里有人回复肯定说是问的voluntariness，因为
结果是已知的，不需要判断结果，主要是解释过程
这个case holding是已知的，接着引用下lexis nexis:
We have never stated that, in the circumstances
shown here, where there was no coercion and no police
involvement, the judge was required to submit the issue
of voluntariness to the jury. The defendant can derive no
support from language in Allen, supra, since we have
concluded that Allen will not be applied retroactively.
The defendant was helped rather than hurt by the judge's
decision to submit the issue of voluntariness to the jury.
Even assuming that the judge was required to submit the
issue of voluntariness to the jury, we conclude that there
was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice
from the fact that the judge did not specifically state in
his instructions that intoxication could render the
defendant's statements involuntary. Defense counsel
fully cross-examined the witnesses concerning the
defendant's state of mind when he made the statements,
and argued the issue in his closing argument. We
conclude that there is no substantial risk of a miscarriage
of justice. | a**********m
发帖数: 2098 | 4 It seems to me that voluntariness only becomes the issue when the current ca
se is reversed on appeal and the "intoxication may render a statement involu
ntary" makes its way in the jury instruction. Only then may the jury conside
r whether the statement is voluntary or not.
By the way, in real world, jurors may have well considered the fact that the
defendent was intoxicated when he made the statement of killing the victims
. I don't believe a jury would reach a different result by merely adding tha
t instruction.
【在 g****k 的大作中提到】
: 我也倾向于问的是SoR，不过另一个帖子里有人回复肯定说是问的voluntariness，因为
: 结果是已知的，不需要判断结果，主要是解释过程
: 这个case holding是已知的，接着引用下lexis nexis:
: We have never stated that, in the circumstances
: shown here, where there was no coercion and no police
: involvement, the judge was required to submit the issue
: of voluntariness to the jury. The defendant can derive no
: support from language in Allen, supra, since we have
: concluded that Allen will not be applied retroactively.
: The defendant was helped rather than hurt by the judge's
| g****k
发帖数: 417 | 5 http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/WaterWorld/794201.html
另一个版块有人这么回复的，看完又有点混乱了。
这个case实际是2010年一个电影"Conviction"的原型，不过电影讲的是被告的姐姐如何
帮被告洗脱罪名，最后由于DNA evidence被告宣判无罪。可惜和我要解释的被告上诉没
半点关系。
上诉结果和你的理论一样，even assuming judge had instruct jury that
intoxication may render a statement involuntary, result wouldn't be
different since defense counsel cross-examined witnesses and argued the
issue (whether intoxication render the statement involuntary) in closing
argument.
我想应该会从你建议的SoR的角度解释，多谢高人点拨，明后来更新后续^_^ | a**********m
发帖数: 2098 | 6 Conviction我也看过。那个case实在太exceptional了
【在 g****k 的大作中提到】
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/WaterWorld/794201.html
: 另一个版块有人这么回复的，看完又有点混乱了。
: 这个case实际是2010年一个电影"Conviction"的原型，不过电影讲的是被告的姐姐如何
: 帮被告洗脱罪名，最后由于DNA evidence被告宣判无罪。可惜和我要解释的被告上诉没
: 半点关系。
: 上诉结果和你的理论一样，even assuming judge had instruct jury that
: intoxication may render a statement involuntary, result wouldn't be
: different since defense counsel cross-examined witnesses and argued the
: issue (whether intoxication render the statement involuntary) in closing
: argument.
|
|
