KY v. Brett Hankison Trial Day 6 - Arguments Outside The Presence Of The Jury | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

Defense attorney argues for the inclusion of justification requests and the choice of evils instruction in the final set of jury instructions in the case against Brett Hankerson.

Key Insights

• 😈 The defense argues for the inclusion of the choice of evils instruction but acknowledges that the defendant did not admit to breaking the law to avoid a greater harm.
• 💼 The defense disputes the application of the Graham vs. Connor standard in a criminal case and believes it should be the same for all citizens.
• 🖱️ The court sustains the prosecution's objection to the use of the Golden Rule argument, prohibiting the jury from putting themselves in the shoes of the defendant.

Transcript

Read and summarize the transcript of this video on Glasp Reader (beta).

Questions & Answers

Q: Why does the defense believe that the choice of evils instruction should be included?

The defense argues that the choice of evils defense is justified when a defendant breaks the law to avoid a greater harm. However, since the defendant did not admit to any wrongdoing, the defense believes that the instruction is not applicable.

Q: What is the defense's objection to the Graham vs. Connor standard?

The defense disputes the applicability of the Graham vs. Connor standard in a criminal case and argues that there should be no different standard for a former police officer. The defense believes that the law relating to wanton endangerment should be the same for all citizens.

Q: What is the Golden Rule argument, and why does the defense want to use it?

The Golden Rule argument prohibits attorneys from asking the jury to put themselves in the shoes of the defendant or victim. The defense wants to use this argument to ask the jury to imagine themselves in Brett Hankerson's position during the incident, but the court sustains the prosecution's objection.

Q: Why does the defense believe that the jury should consider the defendant's actions from his perspective at the time of the incident?

The defense argues that the jury should judge the defendant's actions based on the moment the incident occurred, rather than with hindsight. They believe that the jury should be asked to imagine themselves in that position to understand the reasonableness of the defendant's actions.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Defense attorney raises concerns about the absence of justification requests and the choice of evils instruction in the finalized jury instructions.

• The defense argues that the choice of evils defense is not applicable in this case because the defendant did not acknowledge breaking the law.

• The defense also disputes the applicability of the Graham vs. Connor standard in a criminal case and believes the same standard should apply to all citizens.