Aggravated Robbery With a Deady Weapon

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Texas

A friend of mine was arrested for Aggravated Robbery (with a deadly weapon, firearm.)

A little information: He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them. No property was actually taken because he bailed at the last second. None of the family was harmed however he did present a weapon. The family did see his face as he was not wearing a mask.

There were other witnesses (neighbors) who saw him trying to get away. We was pulled over not far from the house and arrested. Co defendant took a plea agreement and MAY have to testify against him.

He has some priors so he probably won’t be testifying on his own behalf. Court appointed attorney. Has been indicted and is awaiting trial.

That being said, my question is what is the likelihood of him being found not guilty at trial?

About next to none and slim slim just left town. To bad he didn't come visit us. My wife has a 9mm semi auto loaded full of hollow points. What she lacks in accuracy, she can make up for in fragmentation. I prefer my magnum but can't hold it anymore. As a matter of fact my son is already counting on being given the ol horse pistol as soon as he gets his own home.

Lol yes i suppose he's lucky to have not picked your house. He's lucky to even be alive, as most people are armed nowadays.
It's so disappointing to see good people go bad and choose a life like this.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Lol yes i suppose he's lucky to have not picked your house. He's lucky to even be alive, as most people are armed nowadays.
It's so disappointing to see good people go bad and choose a life like this.

---

Most people? Not so much.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

My wife has a 9mm semi auto loaded full of hollow points. What she lacks in accuracy, she can make up for in fragmentation.

---

Mine's full of hollow points too - not so much for accuracy, but in contemplation of who or what might be BEHIND the person who is gonna get a couple of rounds between the nipples.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

It's so disappointing to see good people go bad and choose a life like this.

---

Truly "good" people do not make these choices. A property crime is one thing, but a crime against persons speaks to the perp's true character, and the fact that they were never "good people"!

EVER!!!

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

---

If that were true, he would not have been armed. Guns are used against people not property.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them

None of the family was harmed however he did present a weapon

---

What part of that do you think is not a crime against a person?
He broke into someone's home.
He presented a weapon which implies, " I will use this to harm you if you don't give me what I want".

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

---

Being an outright coward is not a valid defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

.....He has some priors.....

---

Tell #1!

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

.....Has been indicted .....

---

Tell #2! Grand Jury no doubt.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

It's so disappointing to see good people go bad and choose a life like this.

---

The disappointment is that the "good people" he victimized will take a long time to regain their peace-of-mind. You know, that warm feeling of being safe and secure in your own home.

By presented a weapon I dont I made myself clear. He didn't pull one out or point it at anyone. It was visible tucked into the front of his pants. Also, the gun wasn't loaded. It was supposed to be a scare tactic but I guess he chickened out and couldn't do it. Anyway, I'm not gonna sit here and argue about what kind of person he is. Just wondering if there was anyone here who maybe went through something similar and could tell me the outcome of the trial.

- - - Updated - - -

And I haven't even talked to the guy. I'm hearing all this from someone else. So who knows how much of this is even true. No sense judging when you weren't even there.

No sense posting about it if you weren't even there. :stupid:

Just wondering if there was anyone here who maybe went through something similar and could tell me the outcome of the trial.

No, there is no one here who committed armed robbery and then ran like a scared chicken.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

By presented a weapon I dont I made myself clear. He didn't pull one out or point it at anyone. It was visible tucked into the front of his pants. Also, the gun wasn't loaded. It was supposed to be a scare tactic but I guess he chickened out and couldn't do it. Anyway, I'm not gonna sit here and argue about what kind of person he is. Just wondering if there was anyone here who maybe went through something similar and could tell me the outcome of the trial.

- - - Updated - - -

And I haven't even talked to the guy. I'm hearing all this from someone else. So who knows how much of this is even true. No sense judging when you weren't even there.

---

It would be wise therefore for you to keep your trap shut - don't you think? But since you raised it, THIS is the type of person he is: A cowardly bully who evidently is still unable to fathom the concept of actually getting a legal job to pay for stuff you want. Much easier to rob someone else.

And then you say...

Quote:

---

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

---

So one of two things is happening here. You either:

1. Believe the third hand account and are parroting what you've heard, or

2. You think it's fine for a person to commit ARMED ROBBERY as long as they don't actually hurt the person.

Neither paints you in a good light, but 2) is approaching frightening. If you really believe that taking a gun to a robbery doesn't count because it wasn't loaded and was tucked into the guy's pants, you have far bigger problems which cannot be addressed here.

OMG! It's the old 'gun-aint-loaded-so-its-okay' ploy. How one-sided of us to not "look" at all the angles.

That being said........armed home invasion with priors, and the accomplice doing the save-my-ass state's witness dance, my guesstimate is for 25+ WOPP!

Lets get back to the original question.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

That being said, my question is what is the likelihood of him being found not guilty at trial?

---

Quote:

---

The family did see his face as he was not wearing a mask

---

So we have multiple witnesses.

Quote:

---

There were other witnesses (neighbors) who saw him trying to get away

---

More multiple witnesses.

Quote:

---

We was pulled over not far from the house and arrested

---

We even have law enforcement testifying that he was caught in the area.

Quote:

---

Co defendant took a plea agreement and MAY have to testify against him

---

May? Will testify. Another witness.

Quote:

---

He has some priors so he probably won’t be testifying on his own behalf

---

So he isn't a first time offender that could be rehabilitated with probation and community service.

I don't think the question is "what is the likelihood of him being found not guilty at trial?". I think you should ask "how much jail time do you think my friend will receive?"

Aggravated Robbery is a first degree felony, and carries a sentence of 5 to 99 years in State Prison and/or a fine of no more then $10,000.

So I think with his criminal record and being robbery in Texas is considered a violent crime, he is going to see a minimum of 5 years in prison.

Is aggravated robbery his one and only charge?

What about possession of a firearm?

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

---

then why did anybody have a gun?

It's pretty simple when you look at it;

if you are only breaking into a home and have no intent of confronting residents, there is absolutely no reason to have a gun. If you intend on confronting residents and threatening them, or worse, you would want a gun. The fact a gun was present shows intent.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

It would be wise therefore for you to keep your trap shut - don't you think? But since you raised it, THIS is the type of person he is: A cowardly bully who evidently is still unable to fathom the concept of actually getting a legal job to pay for stuff you want. Much easier to rob someone else.

And then you say...



So one of two things is happening here. You either:

1. Believe the third hand account and are parroting what you've heard, or

2. You think it's fine for a person to commit ARMED ROBBERY as long as they don't actually hurt the person.

Neither paints you in a good light, but 2) is approaching frightening. If you really believe that taking a gun to a robbery doesn't count because it wasn't loaded and was tucked into the guy's pants, you have far bigger problems which cannot be addressed here.

---

The reason i say 'no sense in judging when you weren't even there,' is because no one knows what was going on in his head or what his intent was no matter how bad it looks (and yes i realize how it looks, it looks like he's a huge selfish asshole with no respect for other people.)
But no i don't think i need to keep my trap shut. I have every right to ask this question, because whether this is true or not, this is what he's being accused of in court. So I'm not the only one who believes this story I'm being told.

And on another note, I think what he did was beyond horrible. I can't even imagine how scary it must have been for those people, and I'm sure they will never fully recover from it. I don't think its fine to commit ANY kind of robbery armed or not, and since we're now on the subject, i think its wrong for him to be pleading not guilty if he did it. Yes he's a friend and i don't want to see him spend the next however many years locked away, but i DO NOT agree with what he did and i think he deserves whatever jail time they try to give him. He needs to learn a huge lesson and be kept off the streets until he does.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

then why did anybody have a gun?

It's pretty simple when you look at it;

if you are only breaking into a home and have no intent of confronting residents, there is absolutely no reason to have a gun. If you intend on confronting residents and threatening them, or worse, you would want a gun. The fact a gun was present shows intent.

---

I consider a crime against persons hurting someone, or at least i thought thats what the other person was implying. But when you put it that way, yes using a gun even as a scare tactic is a crime against persons, i agree.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

OMG! It's the old 'gun-aint-loaded-so-its-okay' ploy. How one-sided of us to not "look" at all the angles.

That being said........armed home invasion with priors, and the accomplice doing the save-my-ass state's witness dance, my guesstimate is for 25+ WOPP!

---

Obviously everyone is taking my responses the wrong way. No, its in no way shape or form okay to have a gun even if its not loaded. All i was trying to say was that he may have had plans to scare them, if it turned out they were home, but definitely not hurt them.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

So I think with his criminal record and being robbery in Texas is considered a violent crime, he is going to see a minimum of 5 years in prison.

Is aggravated robbery his one and only charge?

What about possession of a firearm?

---

What i've heard is that if you testify on your own behalf, when the prosecutor is questioning you he can bring up your priors. But, if you choose not to testify then its loophole of some sort where the prosecutor can't bring up your priors since he isn't going to be questioning you. So i figure theres a good chance the jury might not be made aware of his past, (assuming he doesn't testify.) But even if the jury did find out, he has no priors for anything robbery or gun related.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Just wondering if there was anyone here who maybe went through something similar and could tell me the outcome of the trial.

No, there is no one here who committed armed robbery and then ran like a scared chicken.

---

Omg, really? Totally thought there would be.

I asked this question assuming there would be some people here who had either friends or family who were involved in a similar case and could enlighten me on what went down at trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

The reason i say 'no sense in judging when you weren't even there,' is because no one knows what was going on in his head or what his intent was no matter how bad it looks (and yes i realize how it looks, it looks like he's a huge selfish asshole with no respect for other people.)
But no i don't think i need to keep my trap shut. I have every right to ask this question, because whether this is true or not, this is what he's being accused of in court. So I'm not the only one who believes this story I'm being told.

---

You have every right to ask the question, and we have every right to tell you it's none of your legal business. Works both ways, right?

Quote:

---

And on another note, I think what he did was beyond horrible. I can't even imagine how scary it must have been for those people, and I'm sure they will never fully recover from it. I don't think its fine to commit ANY kind of robbery armed or not, and since we're now on the subject, i think its wrong for him to be pleading not guilty if he did it. Yes he's a friend and i don't want to see him spend the next however many years locked away, but i DO NOT agree with what he did and i think he deserves whatever jail time they try to give him. He needs to learn a huge lesson and be kept off the streets until he does.

---

This is where you're right. He needs to learn, and he better be damn sure he understands that in some places those terrified residents would have shot him.

Quote:

---

What i've heard is that if you testify on your own behalf, when the prosecutor is questioning you he can bring up your priors. But, if you choose not to testify then its loophole of some sort where the prosecutor can't bring up your priors since he isn't going to be questioning you. So i figure theres a good chance the jury might not be made aware of his past, (assuming he doesn't testify.) But even if the jury did find out, he has no priors for anything robbery or gun related.

- - - Updated - - -

---

That's what Tom Capano said, too. Oh.... wait....

Quote:

---

Omg, really? Totally thought there would be.

I asked this question assuming there would be some people here who had either friends or family who were involved in a similar case and could enlighten me on what went down at trial.

---

I'm asking you with sincerity here. Do you really think that the situation is common enough that you'd find a bunch of folk in a legal forum could relate?

Since I'm not the one on trial i suppose its not really my business, but mind you about half the questions on this site are being asked by a friend or family member, not everyone comes here to talk about themselves.

And since I'm in the crime section of this forum, and since robbery is becoming more and more common these days, yes i thought there would be quite a few people here who knew someone who had been charged with the same or similar offense.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Since I'm not the one on trial i suppose its not really my business, but mind you about half the questions on this site are being asked by a friend or family member, not everyone comes here to talk about themselves.

And since I'm in the crime section of this forum, and since robbery is becoming more and more common these days, yes i thought there would be quite a few people here who knew someone who had been charged with the same or similar offense.

---

Clearly, you are mistaken.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Clearly, you are mistaken.

---

Apparently.

There is definitely a possibility of him being found not guilty, even with all the evidence against him. Take the OJ Simpson trial for example lol

I would assume the main problem is going to be the witnesses. Having multiple people saying they saw you at the scene of a crime is going to be hard to dispute. And if he isn't going to testify then its going to be even harder for him to dispute this because he won't be able to give his alibi.

Another problem might be the evidence they have linking him to the scene of the crime. If he touched anything on his way in or out of the house, the police probably found and collected those prints. And i get the feeling that would probably be what gets him a guilty verdict, because if he didn't know these people and had never been to their house before, why would his prints be there unless he was the robber? But thats assuming he left his prints behind and the police found them, which might not have happened. He could have worn gloves, but then again he didn't wear a mask so obviously he wasn't thinking very far ahead that day lol

And the gun? You didn't mention if the police found it on him when he was arrested. He'd probably have a better chance at winning this case or at least getting the charge reduced if he ditched the gun before he got caught.

Like i said it looks pretty bad for this guy but anything is possible.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

A little information: He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them. No property was actually taken because he bailed at the last second. None of the family was harmed however he did present a weapon. The family did see his face as he was not wearing a mask.

---

Then the odds of conviction after trial are roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

There were other witnesses (neighbors) who saw him trying to get away. We was pulled over not far from the house and arrested. Co defendant took a plea agreement and MAY have to testify against him.

---

Still roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He has some priors so he probably won’t be testifying on his own behalf.

---

He presumably would not testify at trial because, prior convictions aside, he's guilty. Based on his honest testimony alone, his chance of conviction would be roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

That being said, my question is what is the likelihood of him being found not guilty at trial?

---

Roughly 0%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

---

Based on your description of the crime, he intended to confront the occupants of the home in order to try to get whatever it was that he believed that they possessed. You also make it sound like he and his friend were desperate junkies.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

By presented a weapon I dont I made myself clear. He didn't pull one out or point it at anyone. It was visible tucked into the front of his pants. Also, the gun wasn't loaded. It was supposed to be a scare tactic but I guess he chickened out and couldn't do it.

---

He couldn't do what? He was brandishing the gun, so obviously he wasn't to scared to brandish. If you mean he was too afraid to shoot somebody, you just told us that the gun wasn't loaded.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

So I think with his criminal record and being robbery in Texas is considered a violent crime, he is going to see a minimum of 5 years in prison.

---

Depending on his record, probably more like 20 - 50. If he was terrorizing children, all bets are off.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

if you are only breaking into a home and have no intent of confronting residents, there is absolutely no reason to have a gun. If you intend on confronting residents and threatening them, or worse, you would want a gun. The fact a gun was present shows intent.

---

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

The reason i say 'no sense in judging when you weren't even there,' is because no one knows what was going on in his head or what his intent was no matter how bad it looks....

---

Actually, you can make pretty strong inferences based on the facts. He wanted something that didn't belong to him, so he and his buddy got a gun, broke into a home, and terrorized a family as part of their effort to get it. And yes, you can make lots of inferences about his (lack of) character based on his actions.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Obviously everyone is taking my responses the wrong way. No, its in no way shape or form okay to have a gun even if its not loaded. All i was trying to say was that he may have had plans to scare them, if it turned out they were home, but definitely not hurt them.

---

You've already told us that he knew that they were home. You have told us that he was going to use the firearm for [something] but "chickened out". He wasn't planning to wave an unloaded firearm around an empty house.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

What i've heard is that if you testify on your own behalf, when the prosecutor is questioning you he can bring up your priors.

---

Priors can potentially come in as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- and that can happen without the defendant's testimony. Odds are, though, that you're thinking about prior acts of theft which, if a defendant testifies, can often come into evidence to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

I asked this question assuming there would be some people here who had either friends or family who were involved in a similar case and could enlighten me on what went down at trial.

---

People coming up against overwhelming evidence of guilt rarely take their cases to trial unless they are not offered a plea bargain that reduces their potential exposure. When they do take this type of case to trial, odds of conviction are roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting cloudedspeed

---

There is definitely a possibility of him being found not guilty, even with all the evidence against him. Take the OJ Simpson trial for example lol

---

Sure. We can estimate his chance of acquittal under the facts given as roughly .0000000000000001%.

Most likely guilty verdict at trail,given his priors a plea deal is the best way to go.

1. He got priors
2. He broke in to someone home
3. He did #2 with a weapon.
4. He probably a felon,the gun could be another charge.
5. The other person is gonna snitch

Texas doesn't mess around,he could get 25-40 plus years. (Those kinda of numbers are very realistic considering his priors,unless his lawyer thinks he can beat the charge at trail,then he got at least see what kind of plea offer he is getting).

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

---

And some criminals are finding out who are cancer patients in the area and where they live. Cancer patients are prescribed opiates and that is the number one drug of choice other then heroin for addicts.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Then the odds of conviction after trial are roughly 100%.

Still roughly 100%.

He presumably would not testify at trial because, prior convictions aside, he's guilty. Based on his honest testimony alone, his chance of conviction would be roughly 100%.

Roughly 0%.

Based on your description of the crime, he intended to confront the occupants of the home in order to try to get whatever it was that he believed that they possessed. You also make it sound like he and his friend were desperate junkies.

He couldn't do what? He was brandishing the gun, so obviously he wasn't to scared to brandish. If you mean he was too afraid to shoot somebody, you just told us that the gun wasn't loaded.

Depending on his record, probably more like 20 - 50. If he was terrorizing children, all bets are off.

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

Actually, you can make pretty strong inferences based on the facts. He wanted something that didn't belong to him, so he and his buddy got a gun, broke into a home, and terrorized a family as part of their effort to get it. And yes, you can make lots of inferences about his (lack of) character based on his actions.

You've already told us that he knew that they were home. You have told us that he was going to use the firearm for [something] but "chickened out". He wasn't planning to wave an unloaded firearm around an empty house.

Priors can potentially come in as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- and that can happen without the defendant's testimony. Odds are, though, that you're thinking about prior acts of theft which, if a defendant testifies, can often come into evidence to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness.

People coming up against overwhelming evidence of guilt rarely take their cases to trial unless they are not offered a plea bargain that reduces their potential exposure. When they do take this type of case to trial, odds of conviction are roughly 100%.

Sure. We can estimate his chance of acquittal under the facts given as roughly .0000000000000001%.

---

He broke into the house while the family was home.
NO, HE DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE HOME UNTIL HE WAS ALREADY INSIDE.
He figured the house was PROBABLY empty, but incase it wasn't, THATS WHY HE BROUGHT THE GUN.
The gun was supposed to be a scare tactic, IN THE EVENT THEY WERE HOME, WHICH HE DIDNT KNOW IF THEY WERE OR NOT.
And by "chickened out," clearly he didn't chicken out of shooting anyone because THE GUN WASNT LOADED.
He chickened out of two things:
#1 pulling the gun out and pointing it at them as a scare tactic
#2 robbing them
As soon as he realized they were home he bolted
His plan was to hopefully rob an empty house, but if they ended up being home, his plan was to then scare them with the gun and then rob them.
But he chickened out as soon as he saw them and like i said, he bolted.
He ended up not sticking to his original plan because apparently he thought he was tougher than he actually was.
Does that about clear it up, pal?

And it doesn't change a thing. He's still going to jail.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

And it doesn't change a thing. He's still going to jail.

---

For a very, very long time. Which he deserves.

Well thank god we can all at least agree on that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

And some criminals are finding out who are cancer patients in the area and where they live. Cancer patients are prescribed opiates and that is the number one drug of choice other then heroin for addicts.

---

Even handicap license plates and placards can pose a problem. I've advised my mother to keep her car placard hidden out of view when the car is at home in the driveway.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Well thank god we can all at least agree on that.

---

Well hopefully in twenty years, you two can remain friends? He is going to need a lot of help in order to find a job with the type of record that he is going to have.

The prison time is the easy part, the next 20 years of having a criminal record will be the hard part. And I don't believe that violent crimes are expugnable?

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

Well hopefully in twenty years, you two can remain friends? He is going to need a lot of help in order to find a job with the type of record that he is going to have.

The prison time is the easy part, the next 20 years of having a criminal record will be the hard part. And I don't believe that violent crimes are expugnable?

---

We can be roomies. I'll get us a bunk bed and everything. Then during the day we can grab our metal detectors and go down to the beach looking for change to buy Mcdoubles.

No but seriously, i don't think my mind can really comprehend the thought of life 20 years from now.
And its even harder to comprehend the fact you might have to wait 20 years before you can see someone again.

And yeah i'm sure we would still be friends, assuming prison didn't ruin him. Some people come out worse than when they went in.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Then the odds of conviction after trial are roughly 100%.

Still roughly 100%.

He presumably would not testify at trial because, prior convictions aside, he's guilty. Based on his honest testimony alone, his chance of conviction would be roughly 100%.

Roughly 0%.

Based on your description of the crime, he intended to confront the occupants of the home in order to try to get whatever it was that he believed that they possessed. You also make it sound like he and his friend were desperate junkies.

He couldn't do what? He was brandishing the gun, so obviously he wasn't to scared to brandish. If you mean he was too afraid to shoot somebody, you just told us that the gun wasn't loaded.

Depending on his record, probably more like 20 - 50. If he was terrorizing children, all bets are off.

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

Actually, you can make pretty strong inferences based on the facts. He wanted something that didn't belong to him, so he and his buddy got a gun, broke into a home, and terrorized a family as part of their effort to get it. And yes, you can make lots of inferences about his (lack of) character based on his actions.

You've already told us that he knew that they were home. You have told us that he was going to use the firearm for [something] but "chickened out". He wasn't planning to wave an unloaded firearm around an empty house.

Priors can potentially come in as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- and that can happen without the defendant's testimony. Odds are, though, that you're thinking about prior acts of theft which, if a defendant testifies, can often come into evidence to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness.

People coming up against overwhelming evidence of guilt rarely take their cases to trial unless they are not offered a plea bargain that reduces their potential exposure. When they do take this type of case to trial, odds of conviction are roughly 100%.

Sure. We can estimate his chance of acquittal under the facts given as roughly .0000000000000001%.

---

Just noticed your name was 'Mr. Knowitall'. That explains a lot LOL

Someday, Santa will grant my wish that people don't drag up OJ or McDonald's without actually knowing what happened and why.

Someday.

Oh, you'll be able to see him during those twenty years. It's just that it will be with glass between you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Someday, Santa will grant my wish that people don't drag up OJ or McDonald's without actually knowing what happened and why.

Someday.

---

Hey i thought that was a very relevant reference haha
Some people believe he's truly guilty, but he still got off even with all the evidence against him.
And what about McDonalds? I happen to love McDoubles...

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Oh, you'll be able to see him during those twenty years. It's just that it will be with glass between you.

---

I don't think i could do it to be honest. I think it would be harder to look at him through the glass than to not even look at him at all.

The prosecution basically became the Broncos on Super Bowl Sunday.

Had all the weaponry for a conviction....

... and muffed the punt instead.

Doggie is referring to the fact that many people refer to the case where McDonald's was sued over their hot coffee when they are evidently not familiar with the true facts of the case.

Just understand that she is not responsible for anything she says when football is on. Even I don't always understand her then.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Hey i thought that was a very relevant reference haha
Some people believe he's truly guilty, but he still got off even with all the evidence against him.

---

Well at the time OJ had almost an endless amount of money.

Your friend probably has about a buck-three-eighty.

If you come up with real money, you too could hire expert witnesses and others to try to convince a jury that he isn't guilty, but that would still be hard because the State not only has circumstantial evidence, they also have direct evidence, testimony, a cooperating defendant and possibly forensic evidence to. .