In any crime if no weapon is recovered but there’s statements made by survivors, witnesses and the accused (usually codefendants) saying there was a gun used. This statement alone is enough for the court to use exemplary evidence. This exemplary evidence allows the court to use a weapon from another case to demonstrate the resemblance of the weapon supposedly used.
A statement alone was never meant to be absolute evidence, only to be heard in trial as testimony under oath. The jury judges authenticity of all testimony. Were there’s inconsistency the one giving the cross examination is supposed to redirect the witness of prior statements originally made. If a witness is lying then they are charged with the penalty of perjury. Although this rarely ever happens if the witness is against the defendant, especially if they are the only witness.When physical weapon is brought in the court room throughout an entire trial it influences the jury.
When in reality no physical evidence was recovered.
The fact that the law allows anyone to get 10 years for an unloaded or broken gun is obviously ridiculous. The unloaded or broken weapon that was never recovered is some how giving people a decade (on top of actual crime alledgedly committed) in a broken prison system.
Exemplary evidence disencumbers the DA and the burden of proof is gone when the proof can be fabricated. Exemplary evidence should be deemed void as psuedo evidence.
MULTIPLE THEORIES IN JURY INSTRUCTIONS
SB 1437 has made a major impact on the law. It amended the felony murder rule and abolished the natural and probable consequences doctrine (NPC doctrine). Although several theories still remain, and the court is allowed to instruct the jury any number of theories as long as evidence supports it. So now the court has exemplary evidence supporting theories for “convictions”.
When a theory is instructed during trial, it imposes how to think. What is the point of having a jury of our peers if the court tells them how to think and convict you? These theories are ideas of law specialist not our peers. So the jury is instructed to think unlike a peer. These theorys are expected to be used and understood by a jury the moment they ae instructed. A theory is fine to use for physical phenomena such as the wave theory of light or the theory of equations. But a theory for aiding and abetting does not account for the psychology,sociology and biology that aiding and abetting involves. The theory of aiding and abetting is at most the bare bones of a futile attempt at plausibility as they all are. The truth may not always sound truthful and if we are not certain then surely we can’t convict…right?
If we get into sociology anyone outside your environment is not a fellow peer. A young teenager from Pomona is not a peer of an elderly individual from Hacienda Hieghts. Or the projects of Compton to the mansions of Beverly Hills. The very definition of peer is, one of the same age group.
The point is on using a theory has produced several miscarriages of justice. And to use several theories because evidence supports it, produces another problem which is contradiction. Contradiction arises when more than one theory is instructed because they have opposite definitions. All the theories contradict eachother because none are the same. Which confuses the jury again. Any foundation based on theories and examples should not be enough to convict anyone. Atleast a one theory limit should be law for now. Furthermore by imposing more than one theory indicates doubt as to if one is guilty at all. Instructing several theories to get a conviction is obviously not the answer. Any law specialist with ethics can see this. The judge, DA and attorney are not psychologist. For them to suggest theory is not in their profession nor is it their place to do so.
The illusion of the jury being our peers should be done with. Law students should be the new jury. They would be far more knowledgeable of the law and would gain tremendous insight producing much better judges, DA’s and attorneys for our future.