Self-Defense Can Be Deadly Hard to Prove

Letter to Romans: Self-defense law is meeting karma in the Karmelo Anthony murder case. Texas jurors will likely have to decide if black teen excusably killed a threatening white teen or is inexcusably hiding behind a devil made me do it defense ...

As jurors are being selected, the facts are especially being clouded in the eyes of various beholders, suggested the latest Fox News story. We’re told “the biggest hurdles facing both sides [thanks in part to national media attention] may be finding jurors who have not already formed opinions about the case.” Of course, they’ll eventually impanel a jury. But it’s been clear from the get go the many eyewitnesses are likely to paint diverse images of what went down. Legal analyst Jeremy Rosenthal noted how commentary in the press & social media has also sharply disagreed on whether the accused 18-yr-old Anthony started the confrontation and/or exaggerated a threat; or, whether the 17-yr-old victim, Austin Mecalf, provoked it.

Under Texas law, the article observed, “self-defense is what attorneys call a ‘confession & avoidance’ defense, meaning a defendant admits to the conduct but argues it was legally justified under the circumstances.” Rosenthal noted you cannot provoke the harm & then retreat behind self-defense.” But how the jury will see the evidence that’s presented to it is anyone’s guess at this point. The DA in the case, Greg Willis, insists the grand jury entered a murder one indictment rather than a lesser charge of manslaughter for a reason. He said it was based on the evidence presented there was “probable cause” the worst crime had been inexcusably committed. And yet, the defense will be sure to remind jurors the prosecution must still prove it at trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” or go fish.

Davd Soul