During the trial, prosecutors played recordings that Smith made on his home audio system in which he says he is glad the two young people are dead because he “considered them vermin” and that he was “doing the community a favor by cleaning up the waste.”  Besides using a bullet to stop each of the intruders, Smith continued to shoot them even after they were no longer a threat to him.

People have asked me several questions about the trial and verdict.  Here they are:

1.  The jury came back in less than three hours.  Does this mean anything?

I think it shows how convinced they were of Smith’s guilt.  In trials I’ve been involved with, juries can deliberate for days, especially if it’s a serious case like this one.  People understand the responsibility they have as jurors and want to make sure they make the correct decision.  It always takes an hour or more to choose a foreperson and to take an initial vote.  The fact this jury returned so quickly tells me they had few doubts about Smith’s guilt.

2.  Does this verdict mean that a person cannot use self defense in their home?

No.  The law in Minnesota says that you may use the deadly force that a reasonable person would use if you feel threatened with great bodily harm or death in your home.  Or, if the intruder is committing felony in your home.  You are allowed to use deadly force—even killing someone.  In this case, the jury obviously thought Smith went far beyond the necessary force to stop the threat and even turned it into an execution.

3.  Should Smith get life imprisonment without parole instead of being required to work with young, troubled teens?

Yes.  The Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota that all judges are required to follow, prescribe a life sentence without parole.  Under some circumstances, the judge can deviate from that and could even give a shorter time in prison or probation, but the judge must have compelling reasons that he puts on the record to justify the departure from the Guidelines

http://http://www.startribune.com/local/east/257435001.html  See interview with the prosecutor.

4.  What about an appeal?

All losing defense lawyers promise they will appeal the case and, maybe, Smith’s lawyer will do that also.  However, an appellate court will not decide if Smith was justified using self defense—that’s not the purpose of an appeal.  Instead, the appellate court will look at the trial and if there were errors in the proceedings that were so prejudicial to Smith that he deserves a new trial,  the appellate court could order a new trial.

Let me know what you think about this case.

The post Jury Says “NO” to Byron Smith’s Self Defense appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

I don’t think so.

Here are the basic facts:  Byron Smith is an elderly man who lives alone in a small town in central Minnesota.  For a period of many months he was the victim of several home burglaries.  He wasn’t during those break-ins, but he became afraid that the burglaries would continue.  As a result, he set up a camera system outside the house and made sure that he had guns in the house.  At about one o’clock in the morning, he heard noises outside his house and was quite certain that he was about to be burglarized again.  He sat in his basement with several loaded guns.  The first person in the house was a juvenile boy.  Smith shot him three times, killing him.  Next, a young girl came downstairs and Smith shot her, but that didn’t kill her immediately.  Smith dragged her body into the basement beside the boy and shot her in the head to kill her.  Several hours later, he called police and confessed to everything.

The self defense statute in Minnesota says that a person can lawfully use force in their home if they “reasonable believe they are exposed to great bodily harm or death or they are preventing the commission of a felony within their home.”  The reasonable force used could be killing the intruder.

The question prosecutors have set before the jury is: did Byron Smith go too far in defending himself to actually have committed murder, which requires the government to prove that he killed both young people intentionally and with premeditation?

I think the jury will disallow the self defense and find him guilty.  Smith has shown, in his defense, that prior to the break-in, he was extremely afraid and nervous from the previous burglaries.  That would justify his shooting at any burglar who broke into his house, even juveniles, to stop the threat of great bodily harm or death to himself or to prevent them committing the felony of burglary.  But he went beyond that.  Once the girl had been shot four times, she ceased to move or pose any threat to him.  He could have called the police at that time.  Instead, he dragged her into the basement and carefully shot her under the chin into her head.

Here are some questions to think about:

Does it make a difference how many times he shot the first intruder, the boy?

Could the jury find him not guilty of the boy’s death, but guilty of the girl’s death?

Does it make any difference that he waited a long time before calling the police?

Does it make any difference that he had a recording system in the house where he is recorded as saying, “I’m glad I got rid of the vermin, just like cleaning up some waste.”  (Referring to the victims as vermin)

Let me know what you think will happen.

The post Killing Someone in Your House—OK as Self Defense? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.