TexasCHLforum.com

...by the Arizona Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the lower court for retrial. Will a new Arizona state law that could not be applied to Fish retroactively after his first trail had begun now work to his benefit? If so, there may not be a new trial, because the prosecutor probably can't prove Fish did not act in self defense.


http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/ ... rial_fish/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... e_sent.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm glad to hear this is going to be retried with the change in law putting the burden of proof on the state. Quite unfortunate that he's had to sit in prison for 4 years, but at least something good (clarifying legislation protecting those who have to act in self-defense) has come of the situation.

Godspeed to Harold in his new trial. Hopefully this will be resolved quickly and he can be a free man again.

Wonderful news! So glad to hear that he will have another chance and hopefully will be set free!

-geo

I've followed Mr. Fish's case since the beginning. The shooting was a tragic incident and it's aftermath wiped Mr. Fish out financially...

Glad to hear that he's getting another trial. There were so many things unfair about the first trial. The first prosecutor should have been held responsible for misconduct.

It's interesting to hear that the judge was held to be in error:

the original trial judge — erred in not allowing the victim’s past behavior to be introduced into evidence. The court also ruled that the three dogs the victim, Grant Kuenzli, had with him could have been classified as “dangerous instruments” as defense attorney Melvin McDonald asked.

The judge admitted to the reversible error on the bench. There should have been declared a mistrial at that point, if that was possible.

Here's another developing angle on the Fish case:
http://verdenews.com/main.asp?SectionID ... leID=31488" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Arizona legislature has passed a bill making a 2006 state law applicable to Fish's case, shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecution in a self defense shooting. Had this law covered Fish in the begining, there might not have even been a trial. The Governor still must sign the bill to make it law. I'm not an especially religious person, but if there was ever a guy to pray for, it's Harold Fish.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fish walks:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... eakingnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.examiner.com/x-15948-Homicid ... 04-killing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/ ... mment-form" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wonder if he has civil recourse now for wrongful incarceration and attorneys fees, which are considerable.