Replies

I get the impression that the defense thinks this judge wouldn’t be a good bet to get a positive SYG ruling. The prosecution could also use it against him in a trial if the judge didn’t rule for SYG immunity. In this case it looks like the risk is higher than normal not to get a favorable result.

I agree that defendant thinks the judge is biased against finding the use of force was justified. But, the upside of arguing before a judge is that more evidence comes in, than a jury is allowed to see.

Assume that the judge rejects the motion for immunity. That fact is forbidden to the jury, as best the court can do so. It is expressly NOT a consideration for the jury, and they will at least be instructed thusly. Further, the standard of proof for the immunity motion is "more likely than not." But, for a jury, they have to find that the self defense scenario stated by the defendant is "impossible" in order to reject it - the reverse of beyond a reasonable doubt. Said another way, the actual legal standard, at trial the state has to negate or disprove self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pretrial moving for an immunity finding is very low risk to defendant. I think not moving for immunity is legal malpractice. Notice how O'Mara makes it clear this isn't his decision?