Originally Posted by CPanther95
Who is a jury going to believe, the stand-up guy that helped out the CBI on numerous cases, or the dead serial killer?
I have to assume that the DA can present as evidence what we saw by eye witness testimony or video surveillance tapes.
All he needs to do is prove he had a gun and he thought he was going to use it. Only a moron would suggest that you can retreat faster than the speed of a bullet.
Jane saying that he believed RJ "was going to use the gun" is not enough. Jane's belief must have been reasonable.
Keep in mind what actually happened. The moment RJ turned and walked away so did any hope of "self defense". Jane went after him. Remember "self defense" is an affirmative defense meaning Jane has the burden of proving the elements required for this defense.
Keep in mind, also, that Jane initiated the confrontation by going over to RJ's table.
Based on what we saw, I would rather prosecute than defend. As I said previously, my only concern as a prosecutor would be jury nullification.