Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod

[TomH]

I don't claim to be an attorney, but I do know that innocent until proven guilty is what our court system is based on. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a doubt of some malicious intent, isn't it? Because if a jury thinks it is not proven, then she is guilty of nothing. Not trying to split hairs or anything Tony! I'd like to hear an attorney's opinion on this as well.

-Tom

 

[Lynne]

While no one here has seen all of the evidence, or even most of it, it appears the good doctor may have the makings of a strong defense.

Having said that, the battered woman's defense is quite risky. If she wins at trial, she wins big. If she loses, the punishment may well prove severe.

Since she has admitted shooting her husband, the she does not have the defense of claiming it was an accident. She has to convince the jury that it was pure self-defense, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

I wish her, and her counsel, all the best. It is truly sad that it had to come to this.

We already had one weigh in Tom.

I don't claim to be an attorney, but I do know that innocent until proven guilty is what our court system is based on. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a doubt of some malicious intent, isn't it? Because if a jury thinks it is not proven, then she is guilty of nothing. Not trying to split hairs or anything Tony! I'd like to hear an attorney's opinion on this as well.

-Tom

 

[TomH]

Oops, you're right Lynne, this was the main point I was trying to make I guess:

the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

 

[TonyD]

I don't claim to be an attorney, but I do know that innocent until proven guilty is what our court system is based on. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a doubt of some malicious intent, isn't it? Because if a jury thinks it is not proven, then she is guilty of nothing. Not trying to split hairs or anything Tony! I'd like to hear an attorney's opinion on this as well.

-Tom

The reason I'm asking for an attorney's view is that, in my research and limited experience, homicide is a crime, period. Although, there can be mitigating circumstances that the defendant has to prove (or show to the court - if you will) existed at the time of the act.

This is a small bit of GA's code: (Bold is mine)

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.

 

[TonyD]

We already had one weigh in Tom.

Which is why I asked for his (Darius) clarification of his statement.

 

[JonJ]

MA SJC rulings:

As matter of due process, when issue of self–defense is properly before trier of fact, Commonwealth, in order to prove unlawfulness in murder and manslaughter cases, must prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self–defense. Commonwealth v Rodriguez (1976) 370 Mass 684, 352 NE2d 203.

As matter of due process, Commonwealth must prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self–defense, whenever issue of self–defense is properly before trier of fact. Commonwealth v Fluker (1979) 377 Mass 123, 385 NE2d 256.

 

[TomH]

I think we are on the same page Tony, what you are saying is that a homicide case is always tried in court regardless of whether it was obviously self defense or not. And the defendent can use certain evidence or mitigating circumstances to defend him/herself.

I do have a question that perhaps an attorney could answer: is the prosecution required to persue a murder with intent charge regardless of the circumstances? Or can the prosecution investigate the case, decide it was self defense, and not even try the person for murder?

edit: thanks for that information JonJ, that makes things more clear on some points.

 

[drgrant]

I do have a question that perhaps an attorney could answer: is the prosecution required to persue a murder with intent charge regardless of the circumstances? Or can the prosecution investigate the case, decide it was self defense, and not even try the person for murder?

This is a good question... because the issue of "Prosecutorial Discretion"
becomes very thorny. I know that a DA can essentially decide not to
prosecute any given case and not even bring charges, unless there is some
law dictating that they take an overly agressive posture?

-Mike

 

[TonyD]

MA SJC rulings:

Thanks, Jon - anything been ruled on since '79 or does it stand as is?

 

[TonyD]

I think we are on the same page Tony, what you are saying is that a homicide case is always tried in court regardless of whether it was obviously self defense or not. And the defendent can use certain evidence or mitigating circumstances to defend him/herself.

I think we probably are as well. I think I may be taking a more "practical" look at it as I think we all know that if you are charged with anything it will be up to you to prove you didn't do it or was justified. As LenS has cited many laws using a phrase about a positive defense, or something to that nature.

I think in reality the burden of proof has switched throughout the years.

 

[TomH]

I think in reality the burden of proof has switched throughout the years.

Sadly this is probably true, people want to blame someone for everything nowadays. I guess I'm still an idealist!

 

[JonJ]

Thanks, Jon - anything been ruled on since '79 or does it stand as is?

What I have is pretty up to date. There are other later appellate cases but they deal mostly with Judge's instructions to juries.

And here's a couple on self defense:

Issue of self–defense is raised by evidence that defendant (1) had reasonable ground to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force; (2) had availed himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to use of deadly force; and (3) used no more force than was reasonably necessary in all circumstances. Commonwealth v Harrington (1980) 379 Mass 446, 399 NE2d 475.

Deadly force can be used in self–defense only on reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, while nondeadly force may be used in self–defense when one has reasonable concern over his personal safety. Commonwealth v Noble (1999) 429 Mass 44, 707 NE2d 819.

 

[TonyD]

What I have is pretty up to date. There are other later appellate cases but they deal mostly with Judge's instructions to juries.

And here's a couple on self defense:

That's pretty much the standard, I believe. And on the surface doesn't look like she met the rule of law for self-defense unless MA has an exclusion similar to the GA code I cited. I would assume all states do but we all know MA is "unique".

 

[Chris]

Here is the true skinny on Self-Defense:

You must decide in a split second if:

a) You are justified in your actions
b) you are more afraid of death or serious harm than losing everything you have.

The jury gets as long as they want to decide if you were right.

 

[KMaurer]

Here is the true skinny on Self-Defense:

You must decide in a split second if:

a) You are justified in your actions
b) you are more afraid of death or serious harm than losing everything you have.

The jury gets as long as they want to decide if you were right.

It's really simpler than that. If the answer to (b) is "yes", then the answer to (a) isn't the least bit relevant. Question (b) is not only the real question, but usually holds one to a much higher standard than the law actually requires.

Ken

 

[Len-2A Training]

As LenS has cited many laws using a phrase about a positive defense, or something to that nature.

I think in reality the burden of proof has switched throughout the years.

I recall quoting (here) from MGL that it is (stated in the law to be) an "affirmative defense" (if I recall the exact words correctly). Thus, you get accused and it is up to YOU (person who took the shot) to defend yourself against the charges with the mitigating factor. I read this as shifting the burden of guilt to the person accused. Your (generic "your") interpretation may be different.

 

[reinbeau]

I agree Ann, it sucks that some losers ruin it for the women who do get hurt. That Duke Lacross case is yet another example. [sad2]

Absolutely! I feel so bad for those boys.

I knew a couple weeks into it that it was trumped up totally, because you know if it'd bneen true, one of them would have turned on the others just to save his ass. That didn't happen, which told me they were all totally innocent.

There's a special place in hell for women who cry rape when no such thing happened.

 

[edin508]

GaryS has already rebutted most of your other points, so I'll just mention that a good friend of mine is dealing with a crazy bitch right now - argument, she stomps out, calls cops, claims he has a gun (pellet gun and paintball gun) and it threatening to kill her.

How many cops showed up to take his guns away, there were a few cars here

I know him, don't know her - he's a mild-mannered geek that I cannot see threatening ANYONE... so please don't throw that in my face.

Not throwing anything in your face, sharing from personal experience, I have never been in a fist fight (maybe couple times in grade school), nevermind hit a women, thats not me and she knew it. But, by having all of that taken away from me put a smile on her face

All I said is that she hasn't been convicted by anyone except you and sksguns yet. Why don't you wait until the court case is done before burning her at the stake?
LMAO !!!!!!! I haven't convicted ANYONE yet. It seems YOU have already brushed this under the carpet as a self defence issue without knowing the whole story. I for one have not taken any sides here. I don't trust anyone so I want more facts to go on before I call it either way.

my .02

 

[edin508]

Edin, I'm using your post to make a point, it isn't necessarily directed t you.

I think this quote sums up nicely what's going on here. One lying bitch and all women are lying bitches. That's the problem with women who use this type of thing to make trouble for men. Problem is that isn't always the case, and I don't believe it's the case here.

But those men burned or those who know one who has been will never, ever believe a woman again.

I will say that she has opened my eyes and made me quite wary of the ladies. I don't think that they are all lying but I will admit that I have trust issues.

 

[Garys]

I think we are on the same page Tony, what you are saying is that a homicide case is always tried in court regardless of whether it was obviously self defense or not. And the defendent can use certain evidence or mitigating circumstances to defend him/herself.

That varies from state to state, which might be part of the misunderstanding. In some states, Texas comes to mind, this might not even go to trial. State laws on self defense vary widely across the country.

Gary

 

[Coyote33]

Updated story:
Cape doctor surrenders medical license

Agreement follows homicide charges

(some more tidbits of info in the story)

 

[Lynne]

According to the police report, on Saturday night Lancaster had attacked Gryboski while the two were driving on the Cape with their 2-year-old grandson.

He attacked her while they were driving and the kid was in the car???? Holy crap.

I wonder if the grandson belong to the son? Anyone know if she's got more kids? If the 2 year old was his, then I could more than understand his being upset at the father.

 

[kevin9]

Where do I sign up to get on this jury?