• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Fatal Shooting in Worcester by Westborough LTC holder UPDATE: Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter! 4-7 Year Sentence with 77 Days Credit.

eboos said:
Never mind. Defense rests.
Click to expand...
Confused by this, did the defense not call any witnesses for testimony? Or you just didn't catch any?

Surprised that the defense team wouldn't want to put the defendant on the stand in a self-defense case, unless he was not able to be coached up to answer well, or the public defenders don't have the resources to spend the required effort on this case. If this goes guilty I wonder if a well-funded, self-defense shooting experienced defense attorney, could get a different outcome.
 
KiloVictorTango said:
Confused by this, did the defense not call any witnesses for testimony? Or you just didn't catch any?

Surprised that the defense team wouldn't want to put the defendant on the stand in a self-defense case, unless he was not able to be coached up to answer well, or the public defenders don't have the resources to spend the required effort on this case. If this goes guilty I wonder if a well-funded, self-defense shooting experienced defense attorney, could get a different outcome.
Click to expand...
The defense rested without calling any witnesses.

Typically, there is only a few times that you would want to put the defendant on the stand. Essentially you only want to do it if it is absolutely necessary to win. Otherwise it opens the door to cross examination that could make the defendant look even worse. If the defense already had a winner at the end of the state's case, don't talk yourself out of a win. Funding is likely not a factor. Indigent defendants are granted funding for experts and CPCS (the state agency which staffs public defenders and oversees private attorneys who take public defense appointments) foams at the mouth to use defense experts. The resources are there.
 
KiloVictorTango said:
Confused by this, did the defense not call any witnesses for testimony? Or you just didn't catch any?

Surprised that the defense team wouldn't want to put the defendant on the stand in a self-defense case, unless he was not able to be coached up to answer well, or the public defenders don't have the resources to spend the required effort on this case. If this goes guilty I wonder if a well-funded, self-defense shooting experienced defense attorney, could get a different outcome.
Click to expand...
IMHO, allowing defendant to testify is very risky especially in a case like this.
Keep in mind, the defense does not have to prove anything. The entire burden is on the state.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar. Amounts to a "moral certainty".
Hopefully that will resonate with the jurors when the judge gives them his charge....

NG I hope!
 
LakeTrout said:
What about the case causes you to hope for not guilty out of curiosity
Click to expand...
Interesting question. I hope that justice (whatever that is) prevails. I hope that if the defendant was justified then he be found not guilty. I hope that if the defendant was not justified, then he be found guilty. I think that manslaughter was the appropriate charge in this instance. Being that I missed a considerable portion of the evidence as well as the arguments, I am not in a position to say "guilty or not guilty". Of course I have an opinion based on what I have heard.
 
eboos said:
Interesting question. I hope that justice (whatever that is) prevails. I hope that if the defendant was justified then he be found not guilty. I hope that if the defendant was not justified, then he be found guilty. I think that manslaughter was the appropriate charge in this instance. Being that I missed a considerable portion of the evidence as well as the arguments, I am not in a position to say "guilty or not guilty". Of course I have an opinion based on what I have heard.
Click to expand...

Probably a better answer than what I have. I agree with all of this. But I would say that if it’s true that he decided to follow the guy and provoke some kind of road rage incident, then I think he should be found guilty. Those are big “Ifs”. If he didn’t follow the guy and instigate the situation then hopefully he is found not guilty.
 
ccm75 said:
IMHO, allowing defendant to testify is very risky especially in a case like this.
Keep in mind, the defense does not have to prove anything. The entire burden is on the state.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar. Amounts to a "moral certainty".
Hopefully that will resonate with the jurors when the judge gives them his charge....

NG I hope!
Click to expand...
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar.

Unless you are Trump, MAGA or the 1/6 defendants.
 
keysersoze said:
The Telegram is saying the DEF did follow the guy-- wouldn't be the first time they don't know what they're talking about-- in fact I'm always surprised when they get something right. There was a time there was a "protest" at City Hall-- it was a naked woman in a cage to protest the circus being in town, there was one person raging about it (I assume with the caged woman) and the rest were people gathering around to see why a naked woman was in a cage-- from the photos it made it seem like there was a huge rally when they ran an article. Not even close. Nobody in the crowd cared one whit about the circus.
Click to expand...
I wish I knew the true answer as to if he followed the guy or not.
 
CRSIII said:
Wow.
20 minutes to flush this guys life!
Click to expand...
They were deliberating since 9 am this morning. I don't know what I missed in testimony.

Best suggestion would be to keep your freakin head if you ever encounter some moron. Be absolutely sure there is no other alternative. Hindsight is a mother effer! This guy will potentially have up to 20 years to consider if this was his only move.
 
eboos said:
They were deliberating since 9 am this morning. I don't know what I missed in testimony.

Best suggestion would be to keep your freakin head if you ever encounter some moron. Be absolutely sure there is no other alternative. Hindsight is a mother effer! This guy will potentially have up to 20 years to consider if this was his only move.
Click to expand...
What was he convicted of?
 
eboos said:
They were deliberating since 9 am this morning. I don't know what I missed in testimony.

Best suggestion would be to keep your freakin head if you ever encounter some moron. Be absolutely sure there is no other alternative. Hindsight is a mother effer! This guy will potentially have up to 20 years to consider if this was his only move.
Click to expand...
My speed reading sux.
 
EJFudd said:
Going by the newspaper's description... if accurate... the Defendant followed the "victim" down Highland St a little over 800 feet.
Click to expand...

Also makes it sound like the defendant(Peckham) got out of his car. Or might just be weirdly worded.

“Brant, the prosecutor, said Peckham had plenty of options. He could have stayed in the car, let Smith punch the window or call 911 prior to the shooting rather than after.”
 
LakeTrout said:
Also makes it sound like the defendant(Peckham) got out of his car. Or might just be weirdly worded.

“Brant, the prosecutor, said Peckham had plenty of options. He could have stayed in the car, let Smith punch the window or call 911 prior to the shooting rather than after.”
Click to expand...
Again, more confusing statements.
 
LakeTrout said:
Also makes it sound like the defendant(Peckham) got out of his car. Or might just be weirdly worded.

“Brant, the prosecutor, said Peckham had plenty of options. He could have stayed in the car, let Smith punch the window or call 911 prior to the shooting rather than after.”
Click to expand...
Just poorly worded, I think...
 
"Brant, the prosecutor, said Peckham had plenty of options. He could have stayed in the car, let Smith punch the window or call 911 prior to the shooting rather than after"

You need to wait and be seriously injured. Before you can use deadly force.
But not if your in the special class.
 
"Hussey pushed the jury with the notion that Peckham genuinely believed that he was endanger of suffering serious bodily harm or even death at the hands of Smith.

Brant countered that there is no evidence that Smith was upset. It’s just speculation on behalf of the defense."

So he got out of the car and punched the window...because he wasn't upset? Some interesting reporting.
 

Similar threads

James Crumbley, the father of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
Replies
28
Views
607
Palladin
Palladin
85-year-old Idaho woman hailed as 'hero' in fatal shooting of home invasion suspect
Replies
7
Views
136
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
American tourist facing possible 12-year prison sentence after ammo found in luggage in Turks and Caicos
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
2K
1sern
1
Mall of NH shooting
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
hunt4riches
H
Framingham Man Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for Illegally Possessing Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking
Replies
23
Views
518
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom