DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States I 8 7$2 $ FILED IN THE JAN 08 209 OFFICE OF THE CLER' SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CURTIS LEACHMAN 4723742 Vs. MICHIGAN ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CURTIS LEACHMAN #723742 E.C. BROOKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2500 SOUTH SHERIDAN DRIVE MUSKEGON4 MICHIGAN OM q QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WAS PETITIONER DENIED THE RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO GRANT FUNDS FOR A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERT TO AIDE THE JURY IN DETERMINING PETITIONER'S CAPABILITY TO "REASON" COMPARED TO THE USE OF "REASONABLY" IN THE MICHIGAN SELF-DEFENSE ACT MCL 780.971 ET. SEQ. AND MICHIGAN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION SECTION 7.15 AND WAS TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT MAKING A SECOND REQUEST FOR FUNDS AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO DO? 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................................................... 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................3 CITATION OF OPINIONS..................................................................................6 JURISDICTION...............................................................................................6 MICHIGAN STATUTE INVOLVED......................................................................6 STATEMENT OF CASE......................................................................................8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.......................................13 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................24 List of Appendix People v. Leachman, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 10 (1/13/15) (unpublished) People v. Leachman, 498 Mich. 855 (2015) (unpublished) Leachman v. Winn, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9506 (1/22/18) (unpublished amend opinion) Leachman v. Winn, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28781 (11/11/18) (unpublished) Neuropsychological Evaluation 09/20/04 (Roman Psychological Associates) Neuropsychological Report April 21, 2000 (Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services) List of Parties Involved Pursuant to USSC Rule 12.6 CURTIS LEACHMAN #723742 The Petitioner. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel the Respondent for the State. The Solicitor General the Respondent for the United States. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES SUPREME COURT CASES Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68; 105 S.Ct. 1087; 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) ................................15, 19 California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479; 104 S.Ct. 2528; 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1974).........................13 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284; 93 S. Ct. 1038; 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973) ......................14 Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387; 105 S Ct 830; 83 L Ed 2d 821 (1985) ............................................22 Fishery. United States, 328 U.S. 463; 66S. Ct. 1318; 90 L. Ed. 1382 (1946)............................19 Lockhart v Fretwell, 506 Us 364; 113 5 Ct 838; 122 L Ed 2d 180 (1993)..................................23 McMann v Richardson, 397 US 759; 90 S Ct 1441; 25 LEd2d 763 (1970).................................22 McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S.Ct. 1790; 198 L.Ed.2d. 341; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3876 (2017) .........15 Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91; 76 S.Ct. 158; 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955) ........................................21 Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227; 109 S.Ct. 480; 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988) ................................13 Powell vAlabama, 287 US 45; 53 SCt 55; 77 LEd 158 (1932).................................................22 Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44; 107 S. Ct. 2704, 97 L. Ed. 2d 37 (1987) ...................................14 Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 5 Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)....................20, 21 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400; 108 S. Ct. 646; 98 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1988)...................................14 United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303; 118S. Ct. 1261; 140 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1988)..................14 Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14; 87 S. Ct. 1920; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967))..........................14 Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14; 97 S.Ct. 1920; 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)...............................13 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495 ...................................................................21 FEDERAL CASES Beasley v United States, 491 F 2d 687 (CA b 1974);...................................................................22 3. Cone v Bell, 243 F3d 961 (CA 6, 2001), reversed on other grounds, 535 US 685; 122 S Ct 1843; 152 LEd2d 914 (2002) ............................................................................................................20 Gagne v. Booker, 606 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................13 Maupin v Smith,785 F 2d 135 (CA 6,1986) ...... 22 STATE CASES Buhrle v. State, 627 P.2d 1374 (Wyo. 1981).... 18 Chapman v. State, 258 Ga. 214; 367 S.E.2d 541 (1988)..............................................................17 Commonwealth v. Craig, 783 S.W.2d 387 (1990) .......................................................................18 Commonwealth v. Rose, 725 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1987), over'd in part..........................................18 Commonwealth v. Stonehouse, 521 Pa. 41; 555 A.2d 772 (1989)...............................................18 Fielder v. Texas, 756 S.W.2d 309 (1988).....................................................................................18 Fultz v. State, 439 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. App. 1982)..........................................................................18 Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982)............................................................17 Hill v. State, 507 So. 2d 554 (Ala. 1986) (dicta) ..........................................................................18 Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 455 A.2d 893 (D.C. 1983)...............................................................17 People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590; 623 NW 2d 884 (2001).............................................................22 People v Degraffenreid, 19 Mich App 702; 173 NW2d 317 (1969); ...........................................22 People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181; 774 NW2d 714 (2009).......................................................22 People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298 (1994).......................................................................................20 People v Reed, 449 Mich 375; 535 NW 2d 496 (1995)................................................................ 22 People v Rodriguez, 251 Mich App 10, (2002)............................................................................20 People v Toma, 462 Mich 281; (2000).........................................................................................20 People v. Allen, 466 Mich 86; 643 N.W.2d 277 (2002)...............................................................16 People v. Aris, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1178; 264 Cal. Rptr. 167 (1989)..............................................17 4. People v. Carpenter, 464 Mich. 223; 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001)...........................................19 People v. Minnis, 118 Ill. App. 3d 345; 455 N.E.2d 209; 74111. Dec. 179 (1983).......................18 People v. Shahideah, 482 Mich. 1156 (2008).........................................................................14, 20 People v. Tones, 128 Misc. 2d 129; 488 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1985); .................................................. 18 Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 612; 277 S.E.2d 678 (1981)....................................................................17 State v. Allery, 101 Wash. 2d 591; 682 P.2d 312 (1984) .............................................................18 State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me. 1981) ....................................................................................18 State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash. 2d263; 751 P.2d 1165 (1988) ...........................................................18 State v. Clay, 779 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. App. 1989) (recognizing expert testimony admissible under statute) ....................................................................................................................................... 18 State v. Felton, 106 Wis. 2d 769, 318 N.W.2d 25, (App. 1981)...................................................18 State v. Furlough, 797 S.W.2d 631; 1990 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 293 (Apr. 10, 1990) ..........18 State v. Gallegos, 104 N.M. 247; 719 P.2d 1268 (1986);.............................................................18 State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1989).........................................................................18 State v. Hill, 287 S.C. 398; 339 S.E.2d 121 (1986)......................................................................18 State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63; 716 P.2d 563 (1986).....................................................................18 State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461; 693 P.2d 475 (1985)................................................................. 18 State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178; 478 A.2d 364 (1984).........................................................................18 State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 1983).........................................................................18 State v. Moore, 72 Ore. App. 454; 695 P.2d 985 (1985)..............................................................18 State v. Necaise, 466 So. 2d 660 (La. App. 1985)........................................................................18 State v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What's Reasonable?: Self-Defense and Mistake in Criminal and Tort
    Do Not Delete 12/15/2010 10:20 PM WHAT’S REASONABLE?: SELF-DEFENSE AND MISTAKE IN CRIMINAL AND TORT LAW by Caroline Forell∗ In this Article, Professor Forell examines the criminal and tort mistake- as-to-self-defense doctrines. She uses the State v. Peairs criminal and Hattori v. Peairs tort mistaken self-defense cases to illustrate why application of the reasonable person standard to the same set of facts in two areas of law can lead to different outcomes. She also uses these cases to highlight how fundamentally different the perception of what is reasonable can be in different cultures. She then questions whether both criminal and tort law should continue to treat a reasonably mistaken belief that deadly force is necessary as justifiable self-defense. Based on the different purposes that tort and criminal law serve, Professor Forell explains why in self-defense cases criminal law should retain the reasonable mistake standard while tort law should move to a strict liability with comparative fault standard. I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1402 II. THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE ................................................... 1403 III. THE PEAIRS MISTAKE CASES .................................................. 1406 A. The Peairs Facts ..................................................................... 1408 B. The Criminal Case .................................................................. 1409 1. The Applicable Law ........................................................... 1409
    [Show full text]
  • In8anitydefense
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -----= \\ ... .' . HISTORY OF ~~E j' IN8ANITYDEFENSE IN N~ YOR~ sTkrE New Yor)c State l,ibrary Legisl~tive and Governmental Service~ Cultural Education Center , Albany, New York 12230 tj \ \ I" Telephone; (518) 474-3940 -~-------~--------------------- ~--.~ --_.- --------- t .. ;1 HISTORY OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE '.\ IN NHf YORK STATE S-3 by Robert Allan Carter Senior Librarian : , U.S. Department of Justice 89955 August 1982 Nat/onallnstitute of Justice Research Completed February 1982 This document has been reproduced exactly as received fro th ine~~fn ~r organization originating it. Points of view or opinions ~ate~ s ocumen~ ~re those of the authors and do not necossaril ~~~~~~~nt the official position or policies of the National Institute J Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by __ , History~ Of Tnsani ty Defense Carter to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). "·0(.; o 1'. ,. ~~~~~rt~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~e of the NCJRS system';equ/res perm/s- The state Education ,Department does not discrim2nate'on the basis of age, c910r, creed, -disabi.1ity, marital status, veteran statu~, nationa1qrigin, race Or sexl\ _If. This policy is incompliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of. 1972. , 'I Leg is 1at i ve arid Governmenta 1 Serv ices ;, ~ The New York State library "'~, = ~ p, -- - 1 - On January 20, 1843, Oaniel M1Naghten, while attempting to assassinate the English Prime Minister, Sir Robert P~el, instead shot and mortally wounded the Prime Minister's private sec.F-'c:tary, Edward Drummond. At his trial M'Naghten was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18 SELF-DEFENSE 18.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLES Overview
    Chapter 18 SELF-DEFENSE § 18.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLES [A] Overview Every state in the United States recognizes a defense for the use of force, including deadly force, in self-protection. Indeed, one court has observed: It is difficult to the point of impossibility to imagine a right in any state to abolish self defense altogether, thereby leaving one a Hobson's choice of almost certain death through violent attack now or statutorily mandated death [or life imprisonment] through trial and conviction of murder later.1 If a state legislature were to abolish the defense of self-defense, it might very well violate the United States Constitution. 2 Most issues regarding the application of defensive force arise in the context of homicide and attempted murder prosecutions. Therefore, this chapter primarily focuses on the question of when deadly force may be used in self-defense. [B] Elements of the Defense At common law, a non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person.3 Specifically, however, deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the actor reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. 4 1 Griffin v. Martin, 785 F .2d 1172, 1186 n.37 (4th Cir. 1986), aff'd en bane and op. withdrawn, 795 F.2d 22 (4th Cir.1986). 2 See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S._, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) (holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an individual the right to possess a firearm, and to use that weapon for traditional lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home); see also Eugene Volokh, State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of Property, 11 TEx.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Defense Without Imminence
    ARTICLES SELF-DEFENSE WITHOUT IMMINENCE Fritz Allhoff* ABSTRACT The doctrine of self-defense allows that otherwise criminal force can be justi®ed so long as the actor reasonably believes its use necessary to protect against imminent and unlawful attack. Supposing that the force is necessary to dispel the attack, why the further requirement that the attack is imminent? The restriction precludes the use of force which, ex hypothesi, is the only way that the actor could defend himself. This Article surveys and critiques the rationale for the imminence requirement, arguing that it should be jettisoned in favor of a more expansive conception of self-defense. While the focus is on domestic law, the paper concludes by gesturing towards implications for international law as well, particularly with regards to preventive war (i.e., war against non-imminent threats). I. IMMINENCE AND NECESSITY Self-defense has long been taken to justify an otherwise illicit use of force. William Blackstone, characterizing the eighteenth-century common law of England, provided: [I]f the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray. For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and ... makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to * Fritz Allhoff, J.D., Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University.
    [Show full text]
  • Insane in the Mens Rea: Why Insanity Defense Reform Is Long Overdue
    INSANE IN THE MENS REA: WHY INSANITY DEFENSE REFORM IS LONG OVERDUE Louis KAcHuLIs* ABSTRACT While there have been advances in both the criminal justice system and the mental health community in recent years, the intersection of the two has not seen much progress. This is most apparent when considering the insanity defense. This Note explores the history and public perception of the insanity defense, the defense's shortcomings, and attempts to provide a model for insanity defense reform. I spend the first section of the Note exploring the history of the insanity defense and show where the defense sits today. The Note then examines the public perception of the insanity defense, and the news media's influence on that perception, using two recent events as small case studies. The last section of the Note proposes a new model insanity defense, and a plan to implement it. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................. ..... 246 II. INSANITY DEFENSE - HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS AND *Class of 2017, University of Southern California Gould School of Law, B.S. Chemical Engineering, North Carolina State University. This Note is dedicated to those in the criminal justice system suffering from mental health issues. While we work as a society to solve the crisis that is mental health, we cannot forget those who are most vulnerable. I would like to thank Professor Elyn Saks for her guidance and direction with this Note, Chris Schnieders of the Saks Institute for his assistance, and lastly, my parents and Brittany Dunton for their overwhelming support. 245 246 REVIEW OF LA WAND SOCIAL JUSTICE [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Laws: How the Modern NRA-Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 64 Issue 3 Article 10 6-1-2016 Standing Up to "Stand Your Ground" Laws: How the Modern NRA- Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy the Principle of Necessity, Disrupt the Criminal Justice System, and Increase Overall Violence Daniel Sweeney Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Daniel Sweeney, Standing Up to "Stand Your Ground" Laws: How the Modern NRA-Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy the Principle of Necessity, Disrupt the Criminal Justice System, and Increase Overall Violence, 64 Clev. St. L. Rev. 715 (2016) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol64/iss3/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STANDING UP TO “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAWS: HOW THE MODERN NRA-INSPIRED SELF-DEFENSE STATUTES DESTROY THE PRINCIPLE OF NECESSITY, DISRUPT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND INCREASE OVERALL VIOLENCE DANIEL SWEENEY ABSTRACT A majority of states have enacted “Stand Your Ground” laws. Proponents argue that such laws enhance the important right of self-defense. In application, however, “Stand Your Ground” laws have had a negative impact on society. First, “Stand Your Ground” laws ignore the common-law element of necessity that traditionally provided a check on unreasonable self-defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 48 Number 1 Article 4 10-1-2017 Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat Alicia M. Kuhns Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Kuhns, Alicia M. (2017) "Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 48 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol48/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT WHY MARYLAND SHOULD STAND ITS GROUND INSTEAD OF RETREAT By: Alicia M. Kuhns* I. INTRODUCTION In the United States, a majority of states do not require one faced with the threat of death to attempt a retreat before defending themselves.' These states employ stand your ground laws which bar the prosecution of individuals who use deadly force against a deadly aggressor without first attempting to retreat.2 A minority of states, including Maryland, enforce a duty to retreat instead of stand your ground.3 Under a duty to retreat, a defendant may not successfully claim self-defense if he could have safely retreated, but failed to do so, before using deadly force against a deadly attacker.4 However, the line between stand your ground and duty to retreat is not clear cut.5 Doctrines, such as the English common law's Castle Doctrine, have blurred the line on when retreat is required.6 As a result, many states have expanded the traditional Castle Doctrine to apply to guests, cohabitants, places of business, etc., making the rule of retreat more obsolete.
    [Show full text]
  • Insanity Defense
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice Insanity Defense A study guide written by: Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School 100742 U.S. Departmer t of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or orgamzatlon onglnallng II POints of view or opInions stated In this document are Ihose of the authors and do not necessanly represent the official pOSlhon or poliCies 01 the National Insillute ot Justice PermisSion to reproduce IhlS c~led matenal has been granted by P1.1bl:lC:~9rnain/NIJ ____ ... _jJS~R~pi3.rtrneILtqfJ1Jsti!;~_ to the Nalional Cnmlnal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Further reproducllon oUlslde 01 Ihe NCJRS system reqUires permiS­ sion of the c~hl owner Moderator: james Q. Wilson, Professor of Government, Harvard University Guests: D. Lowell jensen, Deputy AUorne)' General, U.S. Department of justice Norval Morris, Un.:versity of Chicago Law School Jonas Rappeport, Chief Medical Oflicer, Circuit Court, Baltimore Ci~y Your discGssion will be assisted by your knowing some of .. the reasons that have been otTered for having an insanity defense, some of the insanity defense tests that have been developed by the courts, and what happens to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why a Defense of Insanity'? How Frequently Was the Defense of In 197'2 the Federal system rejected the Dllrhlllll Rille and The various insanity defen.se standards that are discu~~ed adopted the ~ubstance of a defense of insanity recomillended above are set OUI in the following chart.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending the Self Defense Case
    4/16/2010 http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.n… Close this Window Email / Print A self-defense case is fundamentally different from most other criminal prosecutions. The essence of the defense is that the defendant is the victim of an attempted or completed violent felony such as assault, rape, or homicide which, but for the defendant’s lawful actions, would have resulted in the defendant’s death or in serious bodily harm. The complainant is, in fact, a violent aggressor who, but for the defendant’s lawful actions, would be the one standing trial. The defendant is the “good guy” and the victim is the “bad guy,” despite the prosecution’s efforts to portray the converse. Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes. This article is a starting point for attorneys representing clients in a self-defense case. It is focused on the common law of self-defense, using Massachusetts as its primary example, but the general principles are applicable in any state.
    [Show full text]
  • Stand Your Ground and Self Defense Laws
    LRO A policy brief from the Legislative Research Office Stand your Ground and Self Defense Laws By LaMont Rainey, Legal Counsel Opponents call such laws “shoot first” laws and believe that avoiding confrontation when possible actually protects lives. Additionally, opponents note that stand-your-ground In 2005, Florida became the first state to enact a laws are a solution in search of a problem because existing controversial type of law known as a stand-your-ground self-defense laws offer adequate protections. A 2018 Rand law. Since that time, 26 other states have passed some Corporation report notes that moderate evidence exists to version of a stand-your-ground law.1 Additionally, at least show that stand-your-ground laws may actually increase seven states have adopted stand-your-ground policies via homicide rates.3 case law, jury instructions, or other means. Nebraska’s Self-Defense Laws What is a Stand-Your-Ground law? Nebraska has not enacted a stand-your-ground law. As its name implies, generally a stand-your-ground law Nebraska’s self-defense laws are codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. provides legal justification for the use of force, including secs. 28-1406 to 28-1416. deadly force, when a person: (1) is attacked in any place where he or she is lawfully present; (2) reasonably believes A key self-defense statute is Neb. Rev. Stat. sec. 28-1409, that force is needed to protect himself, herself, or others which includes: from imminent death or serious bodily injury; and (3) is • A justification for the use of force when not engaged in unlawful activity at the time of the event.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Defense in the United States: a Review of the Literature Jake Shields
    Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations Graduate Capstone Projects 2016 Self-defense in the United States: A review of the literature Jake Shields Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Shields, Jake, "Self-defense in the United States: A review of the literature" (2016). Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. 877. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/877 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Self-Defense in the United States: A Review of the Literature By Jake Shields Thesis Submitted to the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology Eastern Michigan University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In Sociology Thesis committee: Peter Wood, Ph.D., Chair Kristina Ajrouch, Ph.d. Brian Sellers, Ph.D November 11, 2016 Ypsilanti, Michigan ii Abstract This literature review examines self-defense as a general concept and in the context of specific legal doctrines. It looks at general issues of self-defense, such as philosophical principles, morality, and social norms; general guidelines of proportionality and force; and how non-lethal technology does not change these principles and guidelines. From there, the paper exams three major legal doctrines—Duty to Retreat, Castle Doctrine, and Stand Your Ground— and discusses their definitions, histories, legal significance, applied usages and specific study results, and the arguments and controversies surrounding them.
    [Show full text]
  • Unintended Lawlessness of Stand Your Ground: Justitia Fiat Coelum Ruat Ann Marie Cavazos Florida a & M University College of Law, [email protected]
    Florida A&M University College of Law Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law Journal Publications Faculty Works Winter 2016 Unintended Lawlessness of Stand Your Ground: Justitia Fiat Coelum Ruat Ann Marie Cavazos Florida A & M University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Ann Marie Cavazos, Unintended Lawlessness of Stand Your Ground: Justitia Fiat Coelum Ruat, 61 Wayne L. Rev. 221 (2016 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNINTENDED LAWLESSNESS OF STAND YOUR GROUND: JUSTITIA FIAT COEL UM RUA T' ANN MARIE CAVAZOS t I. INTRODU CTION .................................................................................. 222 A. The Origin Story: It All Started With The Castle Doctrine........ 227 1. Iowa 1967: Defendants May Use Deadly Force Only to Apprehend Specific Felonies or to Prevent Harm to H um an L ife ........................................................................ 227 2. Colorado 1986: Defendants Who Use Deadly Force Must Prove Entitlement to Immunity......................................... 231 3. Iowa 2010: Defendant Who Gave Fair Warning is Acquitted but Loses Everything in the Process ................. 234 B. The Canon Continues: Florida's Legislature Enacts Stand Your Ground ............................................................................ 237 1. Enactingthe Stand Your GroundLaw ................................. 239 2. Enforcement: Conflict Regarding Pre-TrialImmunity; Florida'sFirst District Court ofAppeal - Motion to I.Douglas 0.
    [Show full text]