Talk:People v. Goetz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
Followed the link from Wikipedia law project. It occurs to me that the introduction to this article should explain why this case is significant. Ordinarily, case articles are introduced like this: Smith v. Jones a circuit opinion from this country discussing the significance of this legal principle. You don't even get to know why this case is important before you are given the facts. Just a thought. mmmbeerT / C / ? 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the case is significant not so much due to the legal holding (which is still an important holding), but due to the fact that it permitted the case against Goetz to continue. The significance of the Goetz case is referred to and linked from the first paragraph of the article which discusses the "media frenzy", etc. Tufflaw 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The quality of the New York political establishment - teaching law students?
Its amazing the Goetz case is inflicted on law students with so much misinformation. Bad cases = bad law. If law is written on a case, then the legal profession has an obligation to engage in a good faith pursuit of truth, instead of politics. Get the facts straight and then decide what the law is. Relying on Troy Canty and James Ramseur (obvious liars at the time) and using biased fact finding in a precident setting case is BS.
Reading Fletcher's "A Crime of Self-Defense" is a waste of time - the book is short on facts and is an empty shell. This decision is more about politics in the NY courts than it is about laws for robbery or self defense. The law hardly changed. While on an adrenaline rush a victim can use deadly force.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.186.186 (talk • contribs) .
It should be noted that prior to this decision Governor Cuomo stated words to the effect "Goetz may have been legally right but he was morally wrong, and everybody knows it." I don't have the exact quote, if someone finds it please put it here. Would this statement have influenced the court? I agree that the main significance of this decision is that it permitted the case against Goetz to continue.
[edit] This article could be misleading
It is misleading that the NY State Seal is used, and this article does not even show an actual transcript of the judge’s decision. A transcript of the judge’s decision should be added. If there are inaccuracies, let them at least be the court's.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.147.215.29 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
I added a link to the transcript of the court's actual decision, and think links to other NY court proceedings on this case could be added (hearing authorizing 2nd grand jury, and dismissal of 2nd indictment?) to provide background information. I'm not sure I got the "Standard for justification" completely right - Judge Crane's jury instruction at the criminal trial probably defines it, so others should feel free to correct or elaborate on it.
[edit] "No basis for the lower court to suspect perjury" ?
"With respect to the lower court's alternate theory for dismissal, the perjury issue, the Court held that there was no basis for the lower court to suspect perjury, and that there was no basis in statute or case law permitting a dismissal merely because new information comes to light which may lead a defendant's acquittal."
What nonsense! "No basis for the lower court to suspect perjury" ??? So "new information (perjury)" can indict someone a 2nd time, but "new information" that is not suspect as perjury has no standing? How far was the court willing to debase itself to indict this guy?
