I think the verdict will probably be guilty of third-degree murder. Second-degree would require a finding of intent to inflict pain or harm, which will always be difficult to prove in such a case unless the officer had been subjecting the victim to a stream of "I'm gonna get you good, sucker!"-type taunts.
While I wasn't completely accurate in my prediction, I was in the minority of those here who thought he'd be convicted of a murder charge. While I understand why the defense tried to cast doubt upon the cause of death (it was essential if they were to have any hope of not being found guilty of the manslaughter charge) I didn't think they had done so. Given the facts as presented, that left only whether the jury would find there was sufficient evidence of intent to support the finding of assault needed for conviction of second-degree murder. I hadn't paid close enuf attention to the case to determine either that I would have convicted him of second-degree murder if I had been on the jury or that the jury was likely to so convict.
Note, I am not saying the jury was wrong in their decisions, just that I didn't pay enuf attention to decide on the second-degree charge. Determining intent beyond a reasonable doubt is always going to be difficult. Given past tendencies to give cops the benefit of doubt, I thought that would be the most difficult charge to prove.
Tho, in hindsight, swinging for the fences in trying to defeat the manslaughter charge probably made it more difficult to avoid conviction on the murder charges. If I thought my client could convincingly appear remorseful, then as a defense attorney, I'd have at least considered the possibility of essentially conceding the manslaughter charge and have my client show remorse to the jury in hopes of avoiding convictions on the murder charges. But it's awfully hard to show remorse for doing something you claim you didn't do.
Poll
