Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Toward an operational definition of the militia | Main | Scots and their knives »

Trial court wierdness on self-defense

Posted by David Hardy · 23 June 2005 09:31 AM

The Indiana Supreme Court just reversed a homicide conviction where the trial court, for reasons not apparent, forbade the defendant to question jurors as to their attitudes on self defense, or to mention that defense in opening argument. The pdf (7 pages) is here. It sounds as if the trial court also ordered forbade defendant to put on evidence of self-defense, but relented at some point and let him at least use his own testimony to that effect.

Even stranger, the defense attorney did not object. The Supremes however regarded this as fundamental error and reversed notwithstanding the lack of objection. If self-defense was a defense, the defendant was entitled to question jurors during their selection to see if they had any feelings aganst self-defense.

· Self defense

Leave a comment