Steerpike

So if they charge him with 'murder', can a jury find him guilty of 'manslaughter'?

I'll do some reading ...

snowbunny

It is possible to have a range of charges that the jury can sort through, but this is generally a bad idea because it greatly complicates things. I think the charge will be manslaughter and *perhaps* the choice will be whether the *intent* was to kill. He could have been looking to subdue the subject without actually intending to kill him.

Steerpike

But I thought they had already charged him with Murder?

I just read this about 'reckless manslaughter'; it has a specific reference to California.
"In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder."

So what's the process - there is a grand jury phase before the trial? so much to read about ...

snowbunny

Yes. There has to be a grand jury that returns an indictment - and this may change the charges that go through to trial. The grand jury can fail to indict on some or all charges. An indictment means that there is enough evidence to satisfy a grand jury that there should be a trial. No grand jury indictment; no trial. The bit you found about recklessness is what is going to be key.

surly

In the case of the shooting death of Sean Bell in New York, the three police officers charged were tried by a Judge not by jury.

"Three detectives were found not guilty Friday on all charges in the shooting death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Jamaica, Queens, in November 2006.........
The seven-week trial, which ended on April 14, was heard by Justice Cooperman after the defendants waived their right to a jury, a strategy some lawyers called risky at the time. But it clearly paid off."

snowbunny

They can forgo a *trial* by jury, but for the prosecution to even get to try them, a *GRAND* jury must indict them.

surly

Well you know the old saying. "A Grand Jury would indite a ham sandwich"
Just a wild guess but I think an Oakland Grand Jury will indite.

Dogbyte

Isnt Criminal Law so simple..........

scrubbedexpat091

A grand jury indictment is not required at the state level and states are not required to use them.

Typically in California the DA files charges, you have an arraignment, then a preliminary hearing is held to determine if their is sufficient evidence for trial, and then the actual trial.

According to the California Grand Jurors Association, the district attorney much more frequently bypasses the grand jury and uses the process known as a preliminary hearing

Although the law allows criminal indictments to be brought by a grand jury, in practice, the District Attorney generally prefers to use the speedier preliminary hearing process.

http://www.glenncourt.ca.gov/court_info/grand_jury.html

snowbunny

Well - there you have a big difference between CA and TX.

Okachickima

It depends on whether the state law allows conviction for a "lesser included offense", for instance non-negligent manslaughter rather than murder. Some states do and some don't, I don't remember whether federal law does or not.

surly

What would you call a the killing of a man being held down by two large men and shot in the back from point blank range by a third?

Giantaxe

Murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances and level of premeditation, if any.

Dogbyte

It depends on what a Court of Law and its officials decide,they have the final say, whatever the outcome.

another bloody yank

To answer that I would need more information.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, what do you believe was the Officer's motive for shooting the man?