Reply to Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting. [/quote]

I don’t think your #2 is correct. Look at the Hernandez case in DC. Not all physical contact is “offensive or harmful.”[/quote]

PP here. I don't think your comment is responsive to what I wrote. I agree that not all physical contact is harmful or offensive. My point was that unwanted physical contact that IS harmful or offensive is an assault.

I'm familiar with Hernandez and I agree that it deals with "offensive touching" assaults, but I don't think it stands for exactly the proposition that you think it does. Hernandez explicitly holds that an unwanted touching is an assault when the victim finds the unwanted touching offensive (and when a reasonable person would agree). The question of whether an unwanted touching is offensive is a question for the factfinder. Certainly a jury could conclude that throwing a sandwich at someone is offensive.

Pages 30-31 are illustrative. https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Hernandez%20v%20US%2015-CM-130_0.pdf[/quote]

A jury could conclude that but did not. That’s the point - this was not “lawlessness” or even jury nullification. The jury found that the act did not constitute assault under the law. [/quote]

Why did he flee?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics