Jason Van Dyke Post Conviction Motions Hearing Part 2

TL;DR

Defense presents legal arguments in a motion for a new trial, including issues with jury instructions, misrepresentation of evidence, and denial of change of venue.

Transcript

I mr. Herbert just for the record what motions you then I I know you may have thought that you covered it before you still have a motion to Russ adjustment but could you formally presented this portion your motion for or you know this look very well written if you want to stand on that which says a lack of jurisdiction and what guess was about the ... Read More

Key Insights

• 👮 The defense believes that the jury instructions did not properly analyze Van Dyke's actions as a police officer, potentially leading to an inconsistent verdict.
• 😥 The timing of the court's ruling on the change of venue motion is a point of contention, with the defense arguing that it impacted their decision for a jury trial.
• 🥺 The defense alleges that the state misrepresented the evidence regarding the presence of a taser on the scene, potentially leading to confusion for the jury.
• ❤️‍🔥 The jury's question about determining the shots fired suggests disagreement or agreement on the justification of certain shots, which could impact the murder charge.

Questions & Answers

Q: Did the jury instructions properly analyze Jason Van Dyke's actions as a police officer?

The defense argues that the jury instructions did not properly analyze Van Dyke's actions, leading to an inconsistent verdict. They propose using instructions that speak to the federal courts' analysis of a police officer's use of force.

Q: Did the timing of the court's ruling on the change of venue motion impact the defense's decision for a jury trial?

The defense claims that the court's delay in ruling on the change of venue motion affected their decision-making process, as they were uncertain about the potential bias of the jury pool. This may have led them to choose a jury trial over a bench trial.

Q: Did the state misrepresent the evidence regarding the presence of a taser on the scene?

The defense argues that the state misled the jury by suggesting that Officer Ivanovich, who arrived on the scene with a taser after the shooting, was the officer who had called for a taser. They claim that this misled the jury regarding the availability of a taser at the time of the shooting.

Q: What was the significance of the jury's question about how to determine the shots?

The defense maintains that the jury's question indicates disagreement or agreement regarding the justification of certain shots. This could impact the murder charge, as it suggests that the jury may have believed that some shots were reasonable.

Q: Why did the defense argue against the court's rejection of non-pattern jury instructions?

The defense argues that the non-pattern jury instructions proposed by the state did not accurately cover their defense of a justified use of force as a police officer. They believe that the instructions should have included the federal courts' analysis of police officers' decision-making in the use of force.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Defense attorney argues that the jury instructions did not properly analyze the actions of Jason Van Dyke as a police officer in a first-degree murder case, leading to an inconsistent verdict.

• Defense alleges that the timing of the court's ruling on the change of venue motion impacted their decision to choose a jury trial over a bench trial, resulting in potential bias.

• Defense claims that the state misrepresented the evidence regarding the presence of a taser on the scene, leading to potential confusion for the jury.

• Defense argues that the jury's question about how to determine the shots fired indicates disagreement regarding the justification of certain shots, which could impact the murder charge.

• Defense challenges the court's rejection of non-pattern jury instructions, arguing that the instructions did not accurately cover the defense's theory.