In a case where one one is charged with being in a place that is incorrectly posted. It seems that the defendant can on only reinforce the evidence the prosecutor has.
- Were you carrying? Yes
Was there a sign? Yes
51% sign at Floyd's in Beaumont
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
IANAL, but I always thought that taking the stand was optional, and up to the defending lawyer and the defendant. Most juries I've been on the defendant doesn't take the stand. I don't believe that one has to actually plead the 5th before the court. A grand jury is different.
In a case where one one is charged with being in a place that is incorrectly posted. It seems that the defendant can on only reinforce the evidence the prosecutor has.
In a case where one one is charged with being in a place that is incorrectly posted. It seems that the defendant can on only reinforce the evidence the prosecutor has.
-
jimlongley
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6134
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
- Location: Allen, TX
I think a good defense attorney would see to it that the FACT that the sign was not legally worded, and thus not enforceable, and the case therefore egregious harassment at best, was presented, and the defendant's awareness of the law and legality of the sign overrides the "intent" of the owner.KD5NRH wrote:Others can be called to the stand to establish that no 30.06 sign was posted; the defendant can exercise his fifth amendment right to refuse to testify as to whether he saw any sign at all.jimlongley wrote: How can the defendant be stopped from taking the stand?
I believe a good arguement could be made that if the owner really intended to keep CHL holders from carrying on his premises it was his responsibility to see to it that his posting was the legal and proper one.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
I agree with all of that.
My issue is just that we still have to go to jail, still have to spend lots of money on a layer, and still have to go to court, until such time as all LEO and prosecutors are finally straight on what the law states and what CHL holders should and should not be arrested for or charged with. It just doesn't seem fair that we took a class and an exam covering these laws and are obeying them, but if we're arrested and charged with something that turns out to be unfounded, do we get compensated or reimbursed for all the costs associated with the invalid prosecution? I don't think so.
My issue is just that we still have to go to jail, still have to spend lots of money on a layer, and still have to go to court, until such time as all LEO and prosecutors are finally straight on what the law states and what CHL holders should and should not be arrested for or charged with. It just doesn't seem fair that we took a class and an exam covering these laws and are obeying them, but if we're arrested and charged with something that turns out to be unfounded, do we get compensated or reimbursed for all the costs associated with the invalid prosecution? I don't think so.
Sign Gone
Well I went back to Floyd's yesterday and noticed that the signs were gone. The only one left was the standard "unlicensed weapons prohibited" sign.