Javaris Crittenton charged with homicide

By shooting a woman?

At least Crittenton acts just like a man should be.

The only thing worse than an Asian Rockets fan is a non-Asian Rockets fan.

Or a Canadian.

By shooting a woman?

... that was out of the kitchen! Oh, bad time to use that?

Really sad story considering the woman has four children and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. At the same time, how can his lawyer say he's not guilty?

At the same time, how can his lawyer say he's not guilty?

If it's a case of mistaken identity or someone else in the SUV fired the shot, then Crittenton isn't guilty.

At the same time, how can his lawyer say he's not guilty?

Uhhh, that's kinda his entire job.

Well good luck to him in trying to prove that.

At the same time, how can his lawyer say he's not guilty?

If it's a case of mistaken identity or someone else in the SUV fired the shot, then Crittenton isn't guilty.

well he was probably the shooter but was aiming at the dude that stole his chain

and lawyers can build a case to create "reasonable doubt" to try to get the not guilty verdict.

Well good luck to him in trying to prove that.

At the same time, the prosecution also has to prove that he was the shooter.

Who the hell snitched in the first place? The shooter.

Well good luck to him in trying to prove that.

He doesn't have to. That's not his job.

At the same time, how can his lawyer say he's not guilty?

If it's a case of mistaken identity or someone else in the SUV fired the shot, then Crittenton isn't guilty.

well he was probably the shooter but was aiming at the dude that stole his chain

and lawyers can build a case to create "reasonable doubt" to try to get the not guilty verdict.

If he shot the wrong person he aimed for, he maybe could still face a charge because of manslaughter.
Even if he wasn't the one who shot, he could still face a charge because of complicity in murder if he was inside/ driving the car.
"Reasonable doubt" because he shot someone who stole his chain? C'mon you can't be serious about that. He would have gotten off with that if he'd shot at the robber directly after being robbed in self defense, but that's obviously not the case.

If he shot the wrong person he aimed for, he maybe could still face a charge because of manslaughter.

Even if he shot the wrong person, he'd still be eligible to be charged with murder under the felony murder rule, assuming attempted murder is a felony.

Even if he wasn't the one who shot, he could still face a charge because of complicity in murder if he was inside/ driving the car.

Only if he was aware of the intention of the shooter.

He would have gotten off with that if he'd shot at the robber directly after being robbed in self defense, but that's obviously not the case.

How many people assault their victim after robbing them? Most, I'd imagine, would GTFO ASAP.

"Reasonable doubt" because he shot someone who stole his chain? C'mon you can't be serious about that. He would have gotten off with that if he'd shot at the robber directly after being robbed in self defense, but that's obviously not the case.

if i read correctly, the dude took Crittenton's chain in April, so he was getting revenge. going after someone months later doesn't really qualify as self-defense.

when I say reasonable doubt, i mean if the jury doesn't feel like there's enough evidence, then they can rule him not guilty. that is the goal of his defense lawyer.
Crazier things have happened.

If he shot the wrong person he aimed for, he maybe could still face a charge because of manslaughter.

Even if he shot the wrong person, he'd still be eligible to be charged with murder under the felony murder rule, assuming attempted murder is a felony.

Not knowing any details I assumed that he could at least get charged for manslaughter. If your assumption is correct he could even face a charge for murder.

Even if he wasn't the one who shot, he could still face a charge because of complicity in murder if he was inside/ driving the car.

Only if he was aware of the intention of the shooter.

Or if he supported the shooter in some kind of way. For example: In Germany it would be enough to encourage the murderer to shoot. IIRC you can charge people with complicity to commit murder if it's sure all have been in the car but it's not sure which of them drove the car and who exactly fired the gun. But I have to admitt that my knowledge of American penal law isn't the best.

He would have gotten off with that if he'd shot at the robber directly after being robbed in self defense, but that's obviously not the case.

How many people assault their victim after robbing them? Most, I'd imagine, would GTFO ASAP.

It was just an theoretically example of how you can mange to get off with no charge. I agree that it is not very likely that such things happen in real. But jurists like those theoretical stuff a lot.

"Reasonable doubt" because he shot someone who stole his chain? C'mon you can't be serious about that. He would have gotten off with that if he'd shot at the robber directly after being robbed in self defense, but that's obviously not the case.

if i read correctly, the dude took Crittenton's chain in April, so he was getting revenge. going after someone months later doesn't really qualify as self-defense.

That's for sure. It was just meant as an example on how to get off with no charge.

when I say reasonable doubt, i mean if the jury doesn't feel like there's enough evidence, then they can rule him not guilty. that is the goal of his defense lawyer.
Crazier things have happened.

In my opinion it could be enough to convince the jury he was in the car and they were getting after that dude... But much depends on the DA and of what Critterton is charged with. We'll see.

Edit: Spelling...

Last edited by _Steve_ on Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thats what a naked Javaris Crittenton get for drawing out guns.

How many people assault their victim after robbing them? Most, I'd imagine, would GTFO ASAP.

If it's the other way around, assault first then robbery, it's pretty usual. Like this one.

That's not the situation SteveHTOWN described though, is it?

That's why I said IF, since some of you here are practicing their armchair lawyering skills might as well join in on the fun.

That's why I said IF, since some of you here are practicing their armchair lawyering skills might as well join in on the fun.

Quite near to the truth, as I'm a law intern.

Do you have a license to practice law? I thought so. Until then, sit on your armchair good sir.

Do you have a license to practice law?

Of cause not! At least not until now. I'm just drafting verdicts and attend trials. Well at least it allows me to spend a lot of time here.

I thought so. Until then, sit on your armchair good sir.

I'll do! At least in court, judgement seats are very comfortable.