g****k
发帖数: 417 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Law 讨论区 】
发信人: genexk (genexk), 信区: Law
标 题: 对法律不熟悉不熟悉，求高人指教
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 3 22:10:13 2011, 美东)
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 | m*********2
发帖数: 701 | 2 靠， 当然是law on whether this voluntary info is valid.
if it is valid, it's not going to appeal court.
if it's not valid, it's a mistrial.
prob state law.
Federal law shouldn't be this detailed.
【在 g****k 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Law 讨论区 】
: 发信人: genexk (genexk), 信区: Law
: 标 题: 对法律不熟悉不熟悉，求高人指教
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 3 22:10:13 2011, 美东)
: 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
| g****k
发帖数: 417 | 3 谢谢楼上回复，不知道如果说主要是强调procedure不是substantive有没有帮助
我的疑惑是，substantially, voluntariness is not an issue here in this case,
since Commonwealth v. Allen provides "When the voluntariness of a defendant'
s statements to private citizens is an issue, the
judge should conduct a voir dire to determine the
voluntariness of the statements.", this case (Waters) happened before Allen,
and Allen is not retroactive, therefore voir dire is not required,
voluntariness is not determined.
既然不能decide on voluntariness，觉得问的应该是能肯定的问题。就是纠结"law on
this issue"究竟问的是什么issue，appeal的结果题目本身没附带，但是已知的，引
用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. | m*********2
发帖数: 701 | 4 下面那段英文不是写的很好很清楚的吗？
我不知道你到底要问啥。。。
基本上他上诉没戏
你的作业大概是要你解释下为啥他没戏。
你不是都解释了吗？
case,
defendant'
Allen,
on
【在 g****k 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢楼上回复，不知道如果说主要是强调procedure不是substantive有没有帮助
: 我的疑惑是，substantially, voluntariness is not an issue here in this case,
: since Commonwealth v. Allen provides "When the voluntariness of a defendant'
: s statements to private citizens is an issue, the
: judge should conduct a voir dire to determine the
: voluntariness of the statements.", this case (Waters) happened before Allen,
: and Allen is not retroactive, therefore voir dire is not required,
: voluntariness is not determined.
: 既然不能decide on voluntariness，觉得问的应该是能肯定的问题。就是纠结"law on
: this issue"究竟问的是什么issue，appeal的结果题目本身没附带，但是已知的，引
|
|
