This man probably deserved what he got, and the court's decision is the right one, but there is a very small chance it could have been self defense and he did not commit murder. A witness (Reed) claimed a young man (Holley) tried to rob her boyfriend (Smith), shooting him dead. Allegedly, after the young man tried to rob him, the boyfriend pulled out a gun, but the young man shot him. Holley claims a different version of events happened. He claims that Smith tried to grab a wad of cash out of his hands when he was about to pay him, that there was a struggle and Smith managed to grab Holley's cell phone. Allegedly, Smith then reached for a gun, and Holley tried to smack the gun out of his hands. The gun jammed, and Holley then fired a shot and Smith's arm which was holding the gun to try to slow him down, but Holley then had to shoot Smith in the torso. So this might appear to be a "he said, she said" case. Except for one major thing. A month previously, Holley had committed armed robbery, in a separate but very similar incident. So if Holley had previously committed armed robbery, it is very likely that he was the one committing the robbery in this situation too. Armed robbery is a serious thing. It's not as serious as murder, but because he previously committed that crime not long before, he does not get the benefit of the doubt in this alleged self defense case either. He was sentenced to life in prison, for first degree murder. Holley probably was acting in "self defense" when he shot Smith because Smith pulled out a gun. But a person cannot claim "self defense" if they are acting within the situation of a robbery that they are committing. That is not a legal defense to murder (although it can be a small mitigating factor). The big legal question that matters is whether Holley was committing a robbery in this situation. Another thought, if he had killed the witness, he would likely also still have been convicted. It's very hard to make the argument that it was self defense if he had to kill two people, including a female. I think the fact that the witness was a female played a significant role in his conviction. Since females are seen as less likely to commit violent crimes like armed robbery, and a male and female together would be less likely to try to commit a robbery than one male, or two males together. So I think that is an interesting aspect to this too. 121181_1.PDF (kscourts.org) Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction for man who claimed self-defense (wibw.com) The defense won an appeal that the jury should have been instructed by the judge to consider self defense, but the Illinois Supreme Court overturned that appeal.
I do not know anything about this case, but I agree, if he tried to commit a similar crime the previous month, it would lessen his credibility in my mind guns ruined both of these young teens lives, one died, one will spend life in prison
I'd like to think the jury was able to 'consider self defense' regardless of whether they were instructed to or not.
It was illegal for both of them to have the guns. But then again, it was also illegal to have the marijuana, and that didn't stop them either. Some could be racist here and say it wasn't a good idea for two black young adult teens to have and carry around guns with them, especially ones involved in marijuana drug dealing. But that's not the topic of this discussion.
Colorado got the idea of forcing their citizens to choose between marijuana rights and gun rights. Might not have been a bad idea. Still, many people will ignore the rules. Maybe we can try to get back to the main topic now?
you brought it up in response to my post, lol all I said is "guns ruined both of these young teens lives, one died, one will spend life in prison" that was very on topic
Personally, I'm not sure that I agree with the state Supreme Court. While the facts were clearly very adequate to find Holley guilty of first degree murder, that wasn't really the specific question the state Supreme Court was considering. I think the judge probably should have instructed the jurors to consider self-defense. This is because if any of the jurors had adequate doubt in their mind that Holley had been carrying out a robbery, they might have still considered it a "murder" even if Holley had only shot after the other man pulled out a gun. (The jury might have still blamed him for the death for several other reasons) They might not have been able to draw a distinction between "murder" and "first degree murder". Although the jury should have made the decision they made, the decision is still ultimately up to the jury and it is their decision to make. The judge is supposed to help them understand the law so they can make the right decision. It's common for juries to be confused by complex details and misinterpret the meaning of the law all the time in certain types of situations. But if the Supreme Court had ruled that the jury should have been instructed, it would have created the need for a new trial all over again, which would have been a waste (it takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money to carry out a jury trial). So I think this comes down to principles versus utility and pragmatism.
