Prosecutorial Misconduct, Malicious Prosecution, and other abuses by prosecutors are actually the greatest threat to gun owners. You can do everything 100% by the book and still end up being prosecuted. And no, I’m not saying the McCloskeys did things by the book. But if they had, this is still a prosecutor who would have found a way to prosecute them.
Since there was deliberate tampering with evidence at the lab, since they did not put the evidence back in the position it was found. Could an argument be made that all of the evidence coming from that lab would be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
Also would this make a difference on past and future cases.
It would not be fruit of the poisonous tree but it is absolutely tampering with evidence and if everything done with it is not properly documented, it call the chain of custody into question.
I was thinking of prior and future convictions based off of evidence at that lab. @MikeBKY
Basically lawyers using the argument they tampered with the evidence once, what’s not to say they did it here. I just think it’s interesting that a lab would do that because regular civilian juries are programmed by tv they want to see cases solved with science.
Just curious to me because reputation of a forensic anything is all, keeping in mind I was a Forensic Accountant.
Because taking a gun that was deliberately made inoperable in the past and then having your lab techs deliberately fix the gun so it fits some part of the law you are using now to try them under seems highly questionable.
@MikeBKY Not a lawyer but I have a bit of an analytical mind. Would not the contention that a mechanically non functional pistol at the time of the incident that was later “repaired” mean that she was waving a paper weight? I’m also curious what legal system would allow the use of a real gun temporarily disabled into a court room for demonstration purposes when it could be “easily returned to function”. Bob Lee Swaggart flashes through my mind but is not applicable as his were mechanically shortened firing pins. Then again the way she was waving that thing around mebby hubby kept it non functional on purpose
I agree but I did like the addition of the old dude who “Still have the shovel”. I was thinking mebby you were also a Hitchhiker but you missed the towel reference. Don’t worry I still think you are pretty Froopy. Google it, then read the four book trilogy.
Cheers,
Craig6
Edit to add: I Googled Froopy and it now refers to dragon flight in anime. Try Zaphod Beeblebrox or Douglas Adams.
I take it that is because of (for example) “Uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 515.020 which doesn’t appear to require the actual possession of the dangerous instrument you are threatening to use.
Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion…that neither gun was real but exact imitations of actual firearms. The “protesters” didn’t know that…but it persuaded them they needed to move on.
What’s the difference at the time of the encounter???
Remember this is a jurisdiction by jurisdiction thing. I’m not a lawyer, so Mike of course is a couple of orders of magnitude better for answering this. But a simple search of Missouri law says it could still be Assault in the Fourth Degree. That has one definition as " (3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;". The fact that it is a fake gun would make no difference as to the other person’s apprehension unless there was a clear way for them to know it was a fake gun (e.g., the muzzle was painted orange, or it was obviously a water gun, etc.).
In the McCloskey case it does appear they could charge them with Assault in the Fourth Degree. But it is a misdemeanor. And unless there was someone in the crowd who was a Special Victim (it’s a long list, so that is possible) it would be a Class C misdemeanor. That’s up to 15 days in jail and a $700 fine. That sounds more like a plea deal they’d make then something the prosecutor would actually try to go after them for.
I have a couple of questions. If i’m not mistaken, (please correct me if I am) The charging documents are sworn statements, are they not? Those same documents stated that the weapon was “readily capable of lethal use”. But the lab documents state that "The firearm could not be test fired as submitted. " Since it is clear the firearm could not be fired prior to the lab reassembling the weapon at the ACA’s direction, would not the sworn statement “readily capable of lethal use” constitute perjury? If so, how do you think this will affect the outcome?
Yeah. I watched her on the news and thought if she fired that, the way she was holding it, it would probably end up in the dirt. She didn’t seem to have a lot of experience.
