To the layman like me who has no legal training, I must admit that the defense offered by Cheryl McCafferty's attorney is curious at best.

 

That makes me think there are some legalities that might explain the curious aspects.

 

She claims self-defense . Does that preclude her attorney from having witnesses testify that he had abused her in the past? Would such testimony be deemed immaterial and, thus, not allowed?

No, the prior abuse testimony is crucial for three reasons: 1) it lays a framework as to her mental state and knowledge of his prior acts against her. Self-defense has no time element - she can claim she was defending herself against likely future acts; 2) it is a crucial aspect to the defense of battered spouse sysndrome; 3) it puts evidence on the record of domestic violence pursuant to KRS 403.720, so that if convicted, the sentencing court may consider probation and/or conditional discharge of her sentence. Absent such evidence, a A, B, or C felony involving the use of a gun or that is deemed a violent crime is non-probateable.

Something unusual must have happened. The jury and spectators were ushered out. When they were brought back in, there was a fifteen minute bench conference and then the defense just rested. Seems really odd.

 

The prosecution came back with one rebuttal to defense teatimony and then the trial wrapped up. Closing arguments will be Monday and then the jury will get the case.

Edited March 5, 200917 yr by Poster Boy

No, the prior abuse testimony is crucial for three reasons: 1) it lays a framework as to her mental state and knowledge of his prior acts against her. Self-defense has no time element - she can claim she was defending herself against likely future acts; 2) it is a crucial aspect to the defense of battered spouse sysndrome; 3) it puts evidence on the record of domestic violence pursuant to KRS 403.720, so that if convicted, the sentencing court may consider probation and/or conditional discharge of her sentence. Absent such evidence, a A, B, or C felony involving the use of a gun or that is deemed a violent crime is non-probateable.

 

Does the fact that the defense decided to go with self defense instead of battered wife tell you anything?

Something unusual must have happened. The jury and spectators were ushered out. When they were brought back in, there was a fifteen minute bench conference and then the defense just rested. Seems really odd.

 

The prosecution came back with one rebuttal to defense teatimony and then the trial wrapped up. Closing arguments will be Monday and then the jury will get the case.

 

They may have been trying to get a statement of something else admitted and had to argue behind closed doors.

I was speaking with someone there. From the sounds of it, Mungo may have been able to plant a little doubt in the jury based on his ability to cast doubt on whether proper investigation procedure was followed.

Does the fact that the defense decided to go with self defense instead of battered wife tell you anything?

 

They are one and the same. She is battered and therefore acted in self-defense. Self-defense is subjective to the mens rea of the defendant.

I would note that I am not really following this case, just presenting my opinions about certain defenses. Sounds like an interesting case, though.

The fact that the defendant's friend's testimony just contradicted her own testimony doesn't bode well for the defendant. According to the paper that's the second contradiction pointed out by the prosecution.

They are one and the same. She is battered and therefore acted in self-defense. Self-defense is subjective to the mens rea of the defendant.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought the battered wife defense was conciderered to be a mental state of trapped and can't get out so the last resort is to kill the captor. Almost like a P.O.W. trying to escape and would do anything to get out.

 

Where self defense is more of an immediate physical danger, if I don't do something I'm going to die.

 

So history would not necessarily matter in a self defense case, just that she thought she was going to die. That is the way I've always persieved it, but like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

The fact that the defendant's friend's testimony just contradicted her own testimony doesn't bode well for the defendant. According to the paper that's the second contradiction pointed out by the prosecution.

I agree and hope you're right. It's just a small part of the mounting body of evidence for the prosecution.

They are one and the same. She is battered and therefore acted in self-defense. Self-defense is subjective to the mens rea of the defendant.

 

The next trial I work will be my first so take that into consideration when I question the above.

 

Isn't there actually a "battered wife syndrome" that would be different than self-defense? I thought BWS allowed for the woman to commit the homicide but have her mental state taken into account.

 

That would seem to differ from this case where they have no presented evidence (other than from the defendant) that she was battered. Their whole case is self-defense.

For those of you that have been following the trial what evidence did the defense offer up to prove that the abuse was a continuing course of conduct? Were there prior police reports? Prior medical reports of injury? Prior court action? Prior EPO/DVO orders? Or is it he said, she said or in this case only she said?

For those of you that have been following the trial what evidence did the defense offer up to prove that the abuse was a continuing course of conduct? Were there prior police reports? Prior medical reports of injury? Prior court action? Prior EPO/DVO orders? Or is it he said, she said or in this case only she said?

 

And did the kids testify about any abuse suffered by their mother?

For those of you that have been following the trial what evidence did the defense offer up to prove that the abuse was a continuing course of conduct? Were there prior police reports? Prior medical reports of injury? Prior court action? Prior EPO/DVO orders? Or is it he said, she said or in this case only she said?

 

What is she being charged with? Murder 1?

 

If so and there being no question that she shot her husband, who has the burden of proof? If its the prosecution, do they have to prove that it WASNT self-defense? If so, have they?