WI Attorney Eric Newmark On the Difficulty in Arguing Self Defense In the Theodore Edgecomb Trial | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

Theodore Edgecombe's self-defense claim was compromised when he testified that the shooting was an accident, making it difficult to argue for self-defense.

Key Insights

• 🤳 Testifying on one's own behalf in a self-defense case can be risky, as any contradictory statements can undermine the defense's claims.
• 💪 Adjusting legal arguments in response to unexpected testimony is crucial for trial attorneys to maintain a strong case.
• 🔫 The presence of multiple weapons in a confrontation can complicate a case and influence the jury's decision.

Transcript

all right uh so that was theodore edgecombe on the stand during his trial and joining us this hour is eric newmark he is a an attorney in minnesota who is also licensed to practice in wisconsin and has been for many many many years so eric thanks for joining us on this third hour of for the record and catherine lizardo is with us as well eric i'll ... Read More

Questions & Answers

Q: How did Theodore Edgecombe's testimony impact his self-defense claim?

Edgecombe's claim of self-defense was weakened when he testified that the shooting was an accident, making it harder to argue that he acted intentionally to defend himself.

Q: Would Edgecombe have had a better chance of acquittal if he had claimed he shot the victim to protect himself?

It is possible that if Edgecombe had focused solely on self-defense and not mentioned the accidental shooting, there may have been more coherence with the defense's theory. However, the contradictory nature of his testimony made it difficult to argue for self-defense.

Q: Did the presence of weapons complicate the case further?

Yes, both Edgecombe and the victim had weapons, which made the situation even more tragic. This fact may have influenced the jury's decision to find Edgecombe guilty of reckless homicide.

Q: How did the prosecution and defense handle Edgecombe's unexpected testimony?

Both lawyers struggled to adjust their arguments in response to Edgecombe's testimony. The prosecution focused on intentional homicide, while the defense may have been better off emphasizing self-defense rather than the accidental nature of the shooting.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Defense attorneys were likely unprepared for Theodore Edgecombe's testimony, where he stated that the shooting was an accident, weakening the self-defense claim.

• The jury found Edgecombe guilty of reckless homicide instead of intentional homicide due to the belief that the shooting was accidental.

• Both the prosecution and defense struggled to adjust their arguments in response to Edgecombe's unexpected testimony.