Is two-hand opening a sign that it WASN'T self-defense?

[James Mattis]

In Blade Magazine, 09/00. Judge Lowel Bray's column discusses State v. Downard, No. 17940-1-111 (Wash. App. Div. 01/27/2000).

The appeal was not about whether the knife was legally possessed or carried, but about a question of jury misconduct in deliberating over whether what Mr. Downard did with it was self defense or assault with a deadly weapon in a case of an altercation with no indpendent witnesses between two guys who were both "romantically involved" with the same woman.

USA juries are not supposed to perform independent experiments or consider evidence that was not introduced in the trial. How much independent analysis is appropriate for jurors to do could be the subject of another long debate, but the appellate court here granted a new trial on account of the experiments the jurors performed with the knife in question (complete with dried blood), to determine if it could be opened with one hand.

What is interesting to us here is that the jury, and also the trial court judge who initially granted defense motion for a new trial, thought that if you cut or stab somebody with a knife that requires two hands to open, that is evidence against your self defense claim becuase you must have opened it before there was a fight in progress, but a one-handed knife is credible as a defensive or reactive weapon.


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

 

[James Lechago]

Mr. Mattis It appears that the biggest problem with this whole case is that the defense attorney did not do a very good job for his client. The fact that the jury was trying to figure out this issue on its own suggests that neither attorney resolved it.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Interesting concept James. However, I would again argue that experience, knowledge and skill in opening the knife is the deciding factor on how well it opens. Some of us can open a knife with two hands almost as fast as with one hand.

I agree that "Intent" is and should be the issue in a violent crime with a knife, but circumstances have to influence intent, IMO.

If you cut someone with a knife, you are going to go to jail. Whether or not you stay there is the question.

sal

 

[James Lechago]

I agree with you. However, the fact that the jury was performing experiments and based its decisions on information outside of the evidence and testimony delivered in court suggests that neither of the attorneys adequately addressed the issue. If the defense attorney had an expert witness explain what you just said above, or even explained it to the jury himself then the jury should not have felt the need to answer the question among themselves. If I was on the jury and an expert witness was called to the stand and said what you just did, then I would not have felt compelled to play with the evidence. I have little doubt that people have successfully defended their lives with a folding knife prior to the advent of the single handed opening designs. Whether or not they do time for using it in this manner, if it comes before a court, may have more to do with the attorney's rather than whether the defendant was justified in using the knife for self defense.

 

[SDouglas]

I believe that the Jury's Experiments were done to evaluate the Credibility of the Defendant's Testimony.

The Defendant specifically testified that he opened the knife with one hand while being hit by the Victim(?).

The Victim(?) testified that the Defendent attacked with the knife already open.

The Jury decided that the knife could not be opened with one hand and therefore that the Defendant was lying.

Conclusion: If you testify that you opened a knife with one hand in a Self-Defense situation make sure that your attorney has you demonstrate opening it with one hand on the stand.

------------------
AKTI Member No. A000370
Email: DouglasSctt@Netscape.net