It's not impossible that with a competent attorney, he might even get acquited. I don't know the particulars of the case, but there is precedent that a police officer is just another stranger threatening you with a gun until he identifies himself, and the shooting of such a home invader can be justifiable homicide.
One question I'd like to have seen asked in the suppression hearing of the judge who issued the initial warrant: is there any record, that you're aware of, of Officer Jones' confidential informant having been under oath when he told Officer Jones his observations about the duplex?The judge indicated that the fact that Jones believed the statements of the confidential informant was a key part of the reason he issued the warrant. Because the Constitution requires that warrants may only issue upon oath or affirmation, any statements which are essential to getting a warrant must be under oath. As far as I can tell, the statements that actually were made under oath don't add up to anything near probable cause.
Post a Comment