Is a Medical Examiner's Testimony Enough to Establish Homicide

My question involves criminal law for the state of:CA
A legal finding of criminal homicide is different than a medical finding by a Medical Examiner. A ME's job is to determine how the person died. Does the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ME is correct? Jurors without medical training would not be qualified to understand and decide cause of death in many cases. Can a prosecutor decline to prosecute a case because he thinks the ME got it wrong? If he thinks the ME got it wrong would not he file a complaint against the ME? Is it ethical to decline to prosecute a murder just because the DA doesn't think he can get a conviction? Trials are a coin toss; anything can happen. When the crime is that serious shouldn't they try as hard as possible? Is this decision a DA's concern about his own win/loss record, rather than not wasting taxpayers money on difficult case? Doesn't an experienced ME, a forensic pathologist, have a lot of clout in a courtroom?

The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed the crime. The medical examiner's testimony would be part of the evidence a prosecutor might present in a homicide case, when attempting to prove his case.

A medical examiner's finding of "homicide" merely indicates that the death was caused by another person, not necessarily that a crime occurred.

Would it be proof of prosecutorial misconduct for a prosecutor to counter the finding of the ME? This prosecutor searched for a reason this death could have been due to natural causes. He decided, based on an article in a health magazine that, "it is entirely possible the decedant's own physical exertion that night would have been enough to kill him all by itself." I called the Coroner's office, who agreed with the ME's finding of homicide and he said he had, "No comment about another agency's work."

What do you mean by "counter the finding of the ME"?

Again: A medical examiner's finding of "homicide" merely indicates that the death was caused by another person, not necessarily that a crime occurred. The rest depends on the facts.

Perception and likelihood of successful prosecution can be everything. For example, my cousins death was ruled a suicide. The story is that he blew his head off, with a shotgun, put down the gun, exited his car and walked 100 ft to the side of lake before falling dead.

In this case the ME rules the death a homicide. The DA argues that the ME is wrong and suggests the decedent died of natural causes-a ridiculous theory he reaches by misinterpreting the reports. If he makes a mistake is it misconduct, or, would it have to be deliberate and malicious? The damage is the same.

One of the reasons he did not prosecute this case was that he did not think he could prove homicide. Would a jury be likely to question the findings of a ME?

You do understand that "homicide" and "murder" are not synonyms, right? All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

This prosecutor searched for a reason this death could have been due to natural causes. He decided, based on an article in a health magazine that, "it is entirely possible the decedant's own physical exertion that night would have been enough to kill him all by itself."

---

It is not misconduct for a prosecutor to chose not to pursue a case he/she feels cannot be won. Reading between the lines, I strongly suspect that you are wanting the prosecutor to file murder charges for a death that occurred during a police involved incident…specifically, an excited delirium death. In such cases, a ME’s finding of “homicide” and the prosecutor’s statement you quote above are NOT contradictory.

PTPD22 - if you read the poster's hx, you'll find out exactly what he wants.

"You do understand that "homicide" and "murder" are not synonyms, right? All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders."

Is this a real question? Yeah, I get that.

The ADA says it's not murder because it wasn't even a homicide. He says that with the autopsy reports in front of him that say homicide. Do you understand that? Do you think a lawyer has the medical training to question the findings of a forensic pathologist with 30+ years of experience? Do you think the ME could convince a jury that the decedent was killed? I think he could easily explain how the man died. The ADA says the decedent died of natural causes-sudden death due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy(enlarged heart). He did not. The ME would have found evidence of that and he did not.

The ADA goes so far as to suggest a specific cause of death. That is misconduct and it is unethical and it should have been looked at and corrected. This guy isn't just one of the prosecutors. He is the DA's assistant. He ran the DA's Office because our DA is interested in other pursuits and is rarely there.

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.

Let's assume that the ME did rule it a "homicide." What then? That determination does not say WHO is responsible, nor does it require the DA pursue criminal charges against anyone. The heirs of the deceased are free to use this in their civil suit should they choose, but no one can compel the DA to prosecute anyone at all. Ergo, with regards to a criminal matter, this is much ado about nothing.

"Let's assume that the ME did rule it a "homicide." What then?"

Then we have a chance to change something. If we can get them to change how they restrain people it could save lives.

One of the things that killed him was restraint. They all knew better than to strap a person with his injuries onto a medical backboard in the prone position, but they did. Even after he told them, "I can't breathe." Why? Well, they are not talking and besides it was his enlarged heart that killed him because the assistant DA said so in a press release. The public didn't read the autopsy. But everyone and their dog read the press release.

They have a policy that says they should try to avoid forceful prone restraint. Maybe it should say don't ever put someone in that position.

Your question almost sounds like you are discounting the value of truthfulness. When we get the truth, THEN we can go in the right direction. The truth affects things we don't even see or know. It has it's own value.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

"Let's assume that the ME did rule it a "homicide." What then?"

Then we have a chance to change something. If we can get them to change how they restrain people it could save lives.

---

That's a policy issue.

In general, the police restrain people in a manner that is safe for them, first, and safe for the prisoner, second. Since I am not sure what case you are talking about, I can't say, specifically, whether this is a matter of positional asphyxia or something else.

Quote:

---

One of the things that killed him was restraint. They all knew better than to strap a person with his injuries onto a medical backboard in the prone position, but they did.

---

Who is "all?" Since you mentioned a backboard, I assume there were medical personnel involved. If so, then they would also have had a say in what was done and how the person might have been restrained. The police generally do not "strap" people to a backboard - medical staff will. A person is "strapped" down to prevent movement so as to avoid further injury. Is someone alleging that the medics killed him?

And, if strapped down and he died due to error, even if a "homicide" it is not likely to be criminal.

Quote:

---

Even after he told them, "I can't breathe." Why? Well, they are not talking and besides it was his enlarged heart that killed him because the assistant DA said so in a press release. The public didn't read the autopsy. But everyone and their dog read the press release.

---

I'm sure the family and their civil attorney can read the autopsy and they can sue whoever they think is at fault and have a court decide who is liable.

Quote:

---

They have a policy that says they should try to avoid forceful prone restraint. Maybe it should say don't ever put someone in that position.

---

It is poor policy to say "never" or "always" in matters that involve safety because it puts officers into potentially unsafe situations.

For instance, one department I worked for said you could not use flashlights as weapons. Well, one deputy was surprised when a suspect drew a gun from a backpack and she had her flashlight in her hand so she clubbed him int he head which allowed her to step clear and for her and her partner to draw down and engage him in a gunfight. The suspect died and the deputy faced discipline for hitting him with a flashlight. She would have been within policy to be shot and killed, but outside of policy to have saved her life.

In another instance, a juvenile told an off duty officer, "I'm going to waste you" (or words to that effect) and reached into his jacket. The deputy drew a gun and told the kid to freeze, but the kid threatened the officer again and drew an object that appeared to be a gun from beneath a jacket. Not wanting to kill the kid, the officer struck him with the pistol and knocked him down and disarmed him (it was a pipe and not a gun). But, because he "pistol-whipped" the kid, he was given days on the beach. Had the officer shot and killed the kid, he'd be in policy. Because he spared the kid's life, he suffered a month off without pay.

The point being that in those days policies were often contradictory and inflexible even to the point of making no sense. Over the last 20 years policies have evolved to encourage or discourage, or to indicate that something was to be done or not done "generally" but rarely "always" or "never."

Quote:

---

Your question almost sounds like you are discounting the value of truthfulness. When we get the truth, THEN we can go in the right direction. The truth affects things we don't even see or know. It has it's own value.

---

The "truth" doesn't change what happens. If it IS a homicide, what then? Homicide is NOT synonymous with a CRIME, and does NOT require the DA to identify a person to charge with a crime even if it might be.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

Why? Well, they are not talking

---

They are being or about to be sued. Of course they are going to keep their mouths shut.

Quote:

---

Quoting huntsab

---

and besides it was his enlarged heart that killed him because the assistant DA said so in a press release.

---

That right there is what PTPD22 was talking about. He had a pre-existing condition that became exacerbated (people with large hearts don't always take well to serious physical exertion) during the police encounter. As a result of that, he passed away. It was a homicide in that it was caused by another person but likely not criminal.

Did the ME identify the cause of the death? Did the ME attribute the death in any way to his heart condition? I'm betting he included it as a contributory factor at the least.

As for the DA, it's called prosecutorial discretion. That is how any court is going to view it unless you can come up with solid evidence that he is declining to press charges only to protect the officers and paramedics/emts involved. Cause as Carl indicated, the medical personnel would share blame for this as well.