Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

A would-be burglar got more than he bargained for last September when he broke into a home shared by several Johns Hopkins University Students. Apparently the students had heard him come into the house and four of them confronted him in the garage, one of whom was somehow armed with a samurai sword. The students, who had contacted authorities, were attempting to hold the burglar in the garage until police arrived when the burglar reportedly lunged at the student who was holding the sword. In a seeming self-defense effort, the student swung the sword at the burglar, severing the burglar’s left hand completely and cutting the man’s upper body. The burglar died from his injuries. Controversy surrounded the case concerning whether or not the student should face criminal charges. As of this writing, he has not been formally charged in connection with the incident.

One important point to be taken from this situation is that it is not wise to break into the homes of ninjas. On a more serious note, this case illustrates how fine the line can be between murder and self-defense. In Tennessee, a person has the right to use a reasonable amount of force against another to prevent the suffering of death or bodily harm. Thus, the factors that would be considered in charging the individual in Tennessee would be whether the burglar could reasonably have been thought to have presented a risk of serious bodily injury or death to the students and whether the use of the sword in self-defense was a reasonable use of force. Considering that the burglar was reportedly lunging at the student holding the sword in what may have been an attempt to obtain control of the weapon, the student may have been justified in using that sword to defend himself from that risk. Whether or not this situation weighs more toward self-defense or homicide charges will ultimately rest with the discretion of the prosecutor.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/15/samurai.sword.killing/index.html

In what is a somewhat bizarre case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will decide soon what type of speech qualifies as a request for an attorney. A defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to an attorney but in order to exercise that right, the defendant must make a clear and unequivocal request for an attorney so that law enforcement officials know that an attorney is being requested. In State v. Turner, the Tennessee Supreme Court will take a look at just how clear and unequivocal that request has to be.

In Turner, the defendant was arrested for murder and robbery and taken into custody. While in custody, he gave a statement to police admitting his involvement in the crimes. However, defendant apparently made several different statements indicating his desire for a Tennessee criminal defense attorney during the interrogation process, which seemed to indicate that he was asserting his Miranda right to counsel and did not wish to proceed further into the process without an attorney. The defendant made statements such as “Are you my lawyer?”; “How quick will my lawyer get here?”; Will my lawyer get here today?”; Do I need to get a lawyer?”; and “Get me a lawyer.”

Continue reading "Request for an Attorney Must be Unequivocal" »

A Pennsylvania prosecutor is reportedly struggling with how to charge a boy suspected of murdering his pregnant stepmother when he was eleven. The woman was apparently shot in her own home last February, and investigators began to suspect the boy of being shooter when their investigation revealed no signs of forced entry or burglary. Authorities reportedly believe that the boy was jealous of his stepmother and the other children that had moved into the house with her, as well as the child that was on the way. Detectives apparently found gunshot residue on the boy’s clothing and his shotgun seemed to have been recently fired and looked to have burned a hole in a blanket that was covering it. The boy’s family, however, disputes these conclusions and says that his clothes would likely have gunshot residue anyway because he hunted frequently.

The boy has been in juvenile lockup for nearly a year while the prosecutor tries to decide how to charge him. Pennsylvania law apparently forces the prosecutor to either charge the boy as an adult or not charge him at all. Tennessee criminal law is much different in that it gives the prosecutor more leeway as to how to charge the suspect.

Continue reading "Twelve Year-Old May Be Tried As An Adult In Murder Case" »