Is a Medical Examiner's Testimony Enough to Establish Homicide

Oh, i see... you're in a tizzy because the prosecutor has determined that there is no probable cause that a death of a suspect in custody was a crime, and you're convinced that the word "homicide" on a the death certificate should automatically mean that the prosecutor has to file charges against somebody. If you understand what you have repeatedly been told about the distinction between homicide and murder, you should already know the answer to be "no". The prosecutor can agree that it was a homicide and still find no basis to proceed with charges.

No, it is not misconduct. But since that answer goes contrary to your personal agenda, I already know it's not worthwhile trying to explain to you why. I have better things to do with my time than to bang my head against the wall trying to get you to accept an answer that is not what you want to hear.

well the ME does not call himself to the stand, the DA does and its his prerogative who to call as a state witness. I don't see where the DA needs to counter anything ---he simply does not call the ME to be a witness.

Why is this so difficult? The prosecutor disagrees that it was a homicide! He makes up a cause of death. He FABRICATES a cause of death. The fact that the killer is a predator with police powers concerns me, greatly. Thanks for your responses. I could almost write them myself. You are not even able to comprehend the question. I have better things to do than be falsely accused by some dimwitted jerk. Good day.

Why is what so difficult? Explaining basic legal issues to you? Getting you to understand what various words mean in the English language?

The thing that got you into your latest tizzy appears to be having it pointed out to you that the prosecutor doesn't have to charge somebody even if he believes the death was by "homicide", a fact that makes your obsession with that word and the prosecutor's disagreement as to cause of death... irrelevant.

If you "have better things to do than be falsely accused by some dimwitted jerk", perhaps you should stop listening to the guy in the mirror.

You don't have any interest in answering this question. This is more fun. The fact that I do know the meanings of the terms, the fact that I never misused them is unimportant. I was hoping to run into Carl. He doesn't have the same need to bash people and he can comprehend what he reads. Feel free to ignore my questions in the future, little, obnoxious, obtuse experts.

- - - Updated - - -

To be accurate, a homicide is not "a death caused by a person"--that could mean a person caused his own death-a suicide. Homicide is a killing at the hands of another. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

Your question has been answered repeatedly. The problem is that you don't like the answer. Or maybe you're describing yourself - you find it fun to play the part of a person too obtuse to understand basic English, and like to frustrate then insult the people who try to help you.

Were you confused about the discussion, such that you thought we were discussing a self-inflicted injury? Unless you're now whining that the prosecutor isn't charging the dead guy with killing himself, I'm not sure why you're yammering about a homicide-suicide distinction. For the record, a medical examiner's definition of homicide as used on a death certificate can include suicide.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

To be accurate, a homicide is not "a death caused by a person"--that could mean a person caused his own death-a suicide. Homicide is a killing at the hands of another. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

---

Well, to be accurate, according to Merriam-Webster, homicide is defined as:
1: a person who kills another
2: a killing of one human being by another

So, “a death caused by a person” is really pretty close to old Webster’s meaning. And, yes, suicide is frequently considered a form of homicide.

But, as I said before (and you not seen fit to either refute nor confirm), I strongly suspect that the incident that has you so up in arms is an excited delirium death. And, if so, the ME’s ruling of “homicide” and the prosecutor’s position that no crime was committed and “the decedent’s own physical exertion that night would have been enough to kill him all by itself" are NOT contradictory. It may well be true that the ME found that an interaction with another person was the culminating contributing factor in the person’s death. However, if the person was suffering from excited delirium, he or she was already suffering from a life-threatening medical emergency. Wrestling or fighting with another person, being tased, being forcibly restrained, being chased, etc., could well be the final straw leading the person’s body to shut down – and therefore be a “homicide.” However, even if nobody else was around or had any interaction with the decedent, he or she was already in a life-threatening medical emergency and would likely have died without prompt, expert medical treatment. People can and have gone into states of excited delirium while already being treated in a hospital emergency room - and died.

Excited delirium is analogous to an engine with the throttle stuck wide open and the RPMs red-lined. Unless the engine is stopped, something WILL break. There is no way to predict specifically WHAT part is going to break first. It could be a thrown rod, a fused piston, a fractured cam, or a cracked block. But, if you sustain an engine beyond it’s design specifications, it is a matter of when, not if it is going to be reduced to scrap metal.

Excited delirium does the same thing to the human body – the entire system is running in the red. The heart rate is too high, the respiratory rate is too high, the blood pressure is too high, the core temperature is too high. Excited delirium can be brought on by drug intoxication or mental health issues. But, once a person is in such a state, it is not if but when something is going to break and leave the person dead.

In an engine, the way to prevent disaster is to reduce the fuel flow and bring the RPMs down. In a person, the only way to prevent death is to restrain the person and sedate them. Unfortunately, unlike an engine, a person in a state of excited delirium will actively resist – and will frequently do so in a manner that endangers the safety of others. So, in order to save them, it is necessary to physically overpower their resistance and restrain them. Regrettably, this initially adds to the person’s level of exertion – essentially increasing the RPMs – and is sometimes the final straw that causes death. So, yes, the person’s death is a “homicide,” but there is a very high likelihood that the person’s already established level of exertion would have caused the death anyway…No contradiction.

Yeah, he was pretty close to the definition. The investigators were deliberately pretty close to the facts in this case, too. That's what is so scary. It doesn't take much to ruin a homicide investigation. It doesn't take much to change what the facts mean.

The Coroner concurred with the ME's homicide classification in a report released with the autopsy reports.

Recently, I asked what his responsibility was when other agencies misinterpretated his reports. He said he had no comment on what other agencies do. Professional courtesy.

This was not excited delirium. Excited delirium would be classified as a death due to natural causes, not a homicide.

Horse. Dead. Flogging.

This thread is really accomplishing nothing at this point. If you want to bring up professional, ethical, or technical matters regarding prosecutoral misdconduct, you have an avenue to do so via a formal complaint to the State Bar. Ultimately, THEIRS is the only opinion of any consequence on the matter.