We have trials and juries because we don't know the facts and because police aren't competent to apply the facts to the law. The jury determines the facts. A judge applies those facts to the law. We have the facts. The law is clear until we consider the status of supernatural nations.
who is to say he still didn't still fear for his life?
Harry?
[1.] The problem is magic. You either have undetectable crimes or crimes with incomprehensible motives. [2.] And however you define murder, a jury decides if murder actually occurs. [3.] The definition is not the fact.
1. The problem is obtaining a conviction. It's exactly like saying Victor Sells didn't murder anyone in
Storm Front because a jury would never convict. 2. No, juries answer a series of factual questions. The judge uses those factual findings and applies the law to them. 3. The definition is the law.
Here is what the jury instructions would look like (using Texas law, wherein the chief difference would probably be that Illinois doesn't have a separate sentencing portion of the trial; also note that I was wrong that Dresden would have to prove self defense; however, to claim self defense, he would have to admit to intentionally or knowingly killing Cassius):
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT
Accusation
The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of murder. Specifically, the accusation is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Quintus Cassius by commanding the defendant’s dog to break the neck of Quintus Cassius.
Relevant Statutes
A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of murder, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that—
1. the defendant caused the death of an individual; and
2. the defendant did this intentionally or knowingly.
A person causes the death of another if, but for the person’s conduct, the death of the other would not have occurred.
Burden of Proof
The state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accusation of murder.
Definitions
Intentionally Causing the Death of an Individual
A person intentionally causes the death of an individual if the person has the conscious objective or desire to cause that death.
Knowingly Causing the Death of an Individual
A person knowingly causes the death of an individual if the person is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause that death.
Application of Law to Facts
You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that—
1. the defendant, in Cook County, Illinois, on or about October 31, 20XX, caused the death of Quintus Cassius by commanding the defendant’s dog to break the neck of Quintus Cassius; and
2. the defendant did this either intentionally or knowingly.
You must all agree on elements 1 and 2 listed above.
If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or both of elements 1 and 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”
If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the two elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant’s use of force was made in self-defense.
Self-Defense
You have heard evidence that, when the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Quintus Cassius by commanding the defendant’s dog to break the neck of Quintus Cassius, he believed his use of force was necessary to defend himself against Quintus Cassius’s use of unlawful deadly force.
Relevant Statutes
A person’s use of deadly force against another that would otherwise constitute the crime of murder is not a criminal offense if the person reasonably believed the force used was immediately necessary to protect the person against the other’s use of unlawful deadly force.
Self-defense does not cover conduct in response to verbal provocation alone. The defendant must have reasonably believed the other person had done more than verbally provoke the defendant.
Burden of Proof
The defendant is not required to prove self-defense. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant’s conduct.
Definitions
Reasonable Belief
“Reasonable belief” means a belief that an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.
Deadly Force
“Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause death or serious bodily injury or force that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Application of Law to Facts
If you have found that the state has proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must next decide whether the state has proved that the defendant’s conduct was not justified by self-defense.
To decide the issue of self-defense, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following two elements. The elements are that—
1. the defendant did not believe his conduct was immediately necessary to protect himself against Quintus Cassius’s use of unlawful deadly force; or
2. the defendant’s belief was not reasonable.
You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.
If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”
If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of murder, and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”
Now these are the standard Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges. Jury charges are often modified in such a manner as "Did X happen?" Things are added and removed. If I was a prosecutor, I'd try to get a definition of immediate in there.
My position isn't that a prosecutor would have a strong case. It isn't that Harry couldn't convince them that things happened differently than they did. Though it's only in
Proven Guilty that Harry notes that he has learned to lie, so it's questionable whether or not he could prove self defense. Honestly, it doesn't really matter if he had acted in self defense because he thinks he murdered Cassius. This alone would make proving his case hard. Unless the cops did something like record his statements presenting his case for self defense, Harry would likely have to testify to get self defense evidence in front of a jury. I'd have to question Butters vigorously to determine if he could do it.
1. Harry caused the death of Cassius.
2. He did so intentionally.
3. Unless Harry admitted this, it would be hard to prove.
4. Harry reasonably believed
5. that his actions were necessary to protect himself against Quintus Cassius’s use of unlawful deadly force,
6. immediately.
I agree with points 1. through 3. and I disagree with points 4. through 6.
"If I see you again-ever-I'll kill you." Death Masks - Ch. 28. That's why Harry killed Cassius. He won. The fight was over. Cassius would have crawled away like he had in the past. Would he have returned before dying of old age? If he could. Harry knew all of this.
If I was in Harry's shoes, would I have done the same thing? Probably, but that doesn't make it not murder. Was it the right thing to do? Again, probably, but that doesn't make it not murder.
(And back to
Proven Guilty, under Illinois law, I'm pretty sure Harry would be guilty as an accomplice in murdering that warlock kid, but I do not have experience in Illinois accomplice liability laws).
