Posted on 06/30/2009 5:41:35 PM PDT by marktwain
Harold Fish, who's serving time for shooting a man in what he calls self-defense, will get another trial.
The Arizona Supreme Court has reversed and remanded the high-profile case, sending it back for a new trial in which Fish can introduce testimony that was barred from his first go-around.
The case began in 2004, after Fish ran into Grant Kuenzli and his dogs while hiking on a lonely trail in northern Arizona. According to Fish, the only witness, Kuenzli charged aggressively at Fish after failing to control his unleashed canines. Fish pointed a his 10-millimeter handgun at Kuenzli, yelled at him to stop, and then fired three shots that hit the man in the chest.
Despite being sentenced to 10 years in prison, Fish still has plenty of public support. That's evident nowhere more clearly than in the state Legislature, which wants to write a law to help him.
Now that Fish is getting his new trial, legislators could tweak the law to allow him to use a new defense that helps people who want to claim self defense.
That would help him avoid re-conviction, obviously. But he may be able to gain freedom without it.
The Supreme Court's opinion allows Fish to introduce evidence that Kuenzli was sort of a madman about his dogs. His description of how Kuenzli reacted in the forest was similar to how other people remember Kuenzli when confronted about his dogs.
Another discrepancy seems to have come because the state disallowed Fish from having an expert witness testify that his "fight or flight" instinct could have interfered with his memory. As laid out in the court's separate memorandum decision on the case, the justices outline why it's possible that inconsistent statements Fish gave to the police could have affected his credibility before jurors -- and how Fish's state of mind after the shooting could have affected the statements.
In our amateur analysis, the conviction for Fish was probably a fluke, anyway. Give the guy a second group of Arizonans and the exact same evidence, and he would probably be acquitted.
Tags: arizona, harold fish, self defense, shooting
If that DHS leak didn’t embarrass/shame her into nothing, then I doubt this will have any effect on her conscience.
Yes, AZ is often irrational, they claim both Nippleatano and McLame, while thankfully Maricopa County has Sheriff Joe.
What a crap shoot.
The Supreme Court's opinion allows Fish to introduce evidence that Kuenzli was sort of a madman about his dogs. His description of how Kuenzli reacted in the forest was similar to how other people remember Kuenzli when confronted about his dogs.How in the h* could such testimony ever have been considered not relevant in a case such as this?
They’re shooting Fish in a barrel.
|
It wasn't just that. They also excluded evidence from a former girlfriend that Kuenzli had raped her, and evidence from a number of people that Kuenzli had threatened them and that they were afraid of him.
The prosecutor got the original bill to prosecute from a Grand Jury. He was then found to have acted improperly with the Grand Jury, so he said I don't need a Grand Jury, I can prosecute without one (true in Arizona) and proceeded to do so. Harold Fish had been, for all of his 56 years, a model citizen. The prosecutor used arguments such as: He had martial arts training 30 years ago. Why didn't he use his martial arts expertise to deal with Kuenzli, rather than shooting him? One of the Jurors, after the trial, said that they had convicted him because he had too powerful of a handgun (10 mm).
What about the judge? What kind of a judge keeps such evidence out of a murder trial?
Harold has been sitting in jail for over three years now.
Bottom line is, any time you're involved in a shooting you had better lawyer up before you say anything to the police, no exceptions.
As I recall the first investigator that went out reported that it was clearly a self defense shooting. The prosecutor threw him off the case and sent another investigator.
I do not think she has a “conscience” in the way that we think about it. She is a “progressive” in the way that Glenn Beck talks about them. National knowledge of her vetos to prevent a man found “not guilty” when a new trial was held, could help shed doubt on her judgement in the public eye.
We are being Californicated, and have a very liberal media.
That would be good.
Of course not. That never happens. You act like prosecutors will imprison innocent men to enhance their conviction rate so that they can run for higher office or something. They're all saints of virtue, and would never do such a thing. Just look at Mike Nifong, for one sterling example.
I'll put a /sarc tag on this post if you want, but I don't think it needs it.
I left Colorado because of Californication
When judges declare defense testimony "irrelevant", I suspect the reason is usually not that the testimony isn't relevant to the case at hand, but rather that it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.