11-04-2013, 05:03 PM
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: Why does it have to be a Wesen-based zombie drug? Why cant they just claim its some kind of experimental psychotropic drug that was given to Nick in an extremely concentrated dose by the mysterious malefactor, Thomas Chirac?It can be any drug, but you have to prove the drug actually exists. If it's no longer in Nick's blood stream, where is your evidence? If the drug is not known to science (as a wessen-based zombie drug likely would not be), then the drug is not known. So, yeah, where's your evidence that he was drugged at all?
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: You have the testimony of maybe ten officers that were cleaning up the "zombie farm" at the storage yard. You have the testimony of all the zombies themselves that were cured and had no memory of their actions while under its effects.You have not connected Nick's actions in the bar (which happened many miles away from that riot) with the "zombie farm." Until you do, that is all irrelevant. Now, it's possible you could do that, but the only witness you have is the Baron and Nick's friends. The Baron is dead. In regard to Nick's friends, well, I'd love to be the prosecutor that got to cross-examine them. Most of what they would say in Nick's defense would be inadmissable.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: You have Rosalie, who could at least give some testimony as to its general pharmacology.I doubt Rosalie has a relevant scientific degree or any such experience. What she has is a bunch of wessen books and stuff her parents told her. Inadmissable hearsay. She's an easy witness to eliminate. And if you don't have her, what evidence of the drug is left? The Baron is dead. You pretty much need to track down another Cracher-Mortel.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: The existence of _a_ drug is clearly established, the problem only lies in describing the nature of the drug (magical vs pharmaceutical) - but, really, that's immaterial as far as the case against Nick...he wouldn't have to determine what the drug is, only demonstrate what it does.No, it is not. All you have is a bunch of people who rioted. If a toxicology screen (that was even able to identify the drug) was not administered to any of them after the riot, you have no evidence connecting their condition with Nick.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: Burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all, and I think all that is more than enough to establish reasonable doubt - I don't think the DA would even seek to indict in a case like this, especially not with a cop of Nick's stature, with absolutely no motive to try and argue for.Based on the above, I don't believe you are a lawyer. Let me explain what "burden of proof" entails. It's actually describes two different concepts.
1. Burden of Persuasion (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt) - this is the legal standard given the jury in deciding a particular fact (i.e., the guilt of the defendant)
2. Burden of production - this is the side (i.e., the prosecution or the defendant) which has the obligation to put forth evidence for that position.
All the prosecution has to do to convict Nick is show a) he killed someone b) with malice aforethought (i.e., it wasn't an accident). Being under the zombie drug is likely going to be an affirmative defense. The way an affirmative defense works, even if the prosecutor proves everything he needs to prove, the affirmative defense gets the defendant completely off. Unlike in civil trials, the prosecutor usually has to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g., the prosecutor has to prove the murder wasn't in self-defense).
The problem is, as I show above, there is really no evidence that Nick could put forward about the zombie drug given how the wessen world is outside the realm of science. Going back to the burden of production above, even though the prosecution has to disprove that Nick was under the spell of the zombie drug, his entire evidence for this defense is his own personal testimony. If I'm on the jury, I convict Nick.