Kansas Supreme Court Upholds Separation of Powers at Self Defense Hearings

ammoland ^ | 21 March, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The Kansas Supreme Court held that courts are independent of the state's executive branch, when ruling on immunity from prosecution for self defense.

In the case before the court, the self defense claim was very strong. Immunity from prosecution was granted. The state appealed, arguing that the judge was required to look at the evidence in the way most favorable to the prosecutor's case. From cjonline.com:

The state’s highest court rejected a tougher standard set by a lower court for determining when someone can avoid prosecution for wounding or killing another person. The state Court of Appeals had said trial judges must view evidence on self-defense claims in the light most favorable to prosecutors; the Supreme Court said the review must be impartial.

The 2006 law says a person who is attacked “has no duty to retreat” and can use force in response. People who are arrested or charged with a crime but assert self-defense can seek a court hearing to determine whether they are immune from prosecution.

“Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” self defense law reforms are a response to the abuse of prosecutorial power in self defense cases. Defendants may be near certain of winning a jury trial with a claim of self defense.  But prosecutors know that undergoing prosecution, with the attendant legal costs, stress, and time consuming defense, is a significant punishment in itself. There is always a small but real chance of conviction. Threatening such proceedings and the highest level of punishment often results in plea bargaining, even if the evidence of self defense is very strong.

[marktwain]

Hard to believe an appeals court held that a judge had to view evidence from the most favorable viewpoint for a prosecutor.

[submarinerswife]

According to everything we have been told, we are guilty until proven innocent in case prosecutors don’t really have a case, but need that win in court.

[Delta 21]

But prosecutors know that undergoing prosecution, with the attendant legal costs, stress, and time consuming defense, is a significant punishment in itself. There is always a small but real chance of conviction. Threatening such proceedings and the highest level of punishment often results in plea bargaining, even if the evidence of self defense is very strong.

When this kind of thing is done by anyone besides a prosecuting attorney in a court room in front of a judge it is prosecuted as blackmail and extortion.

Neat concept that the Kansas courts have been held as separate from executive branch AND that the judge has to remain impartial AND actually look at the evidence of the case, but not let it leak out that he is being paid from the same tax generated revenue accouinting fund as the prosecuting attorney.

[MileHi]

Hard to believe an appeals court held that a judge had to view evidence from the most favorable viewpoint for a prosecutor.

Stunningly backwards. Flies strait in the face of innocent until proven guilty.