View Full Version : Harold Fish
There was a case in which a man shot at a homeless persons dogs that were charging him on a hiking trail in Arizona. He missed the dogs and then the homeless man attacked him. He shot the homeless man with a 10mm pistol with hollow points. One of the dogs that was a chow had bitten a sherifs deputy in the past. The man was convicted and sent to jail. On of the jurrors said she voted guilty because he used hollow points and his gun was more powerfull than what the police carry. I looked up info on this case and could not find out what defense his lawyer mounted to these points. I would think the lawyer could have put a cop on the stand and had him explain why his department requires hollow points. Also since he was on a nature trail it would be normal to have a powerfull hangun capeable of stopping an attacking wild animal. Do you have acess to the transcripts of the trial or know what Mr. Fish's lawyer argued? If so can you please sumarize the defense that was made for him or direct me to an internet article that talks about his defense in court.
You'll get ample info if you Google "Arizona versus Harold Fish." Detailed discussion of the gun/ammo related elements of the case will be found via GlockTalk's search function under "Harold Fish."
These issues, particularly the hollow point matter, come up frequently in court. Try searching www.findlaw.com for articles written by Attorney Lisa Steele in legal professional journals. Ms. Steele is an appellate lawyer out of New England who specializes in self-defense cases,and has documented many cases in which such issues had a profound effect upon both verdict and sentence.
Speaking just personally, it has been my experience that the "super deadly dum-dum bullet" argument prevails when it goes unchallenged, but is readily shot down (no pun intended) when the defense educates the jury as to why such bullets are safer for all concerned...the reason they are virtually universal issue for American police. Ms. Steele seems to have found the same thing. It would appear that the bogus "deadlier bullet" argument was not effectively countered in the Fish case.
I don't have complete transcripts of the case, but the defense fund created by concerned citizens on behalf of Mr. Fish has a website which may have links or sources for finding that. Your Google search will get you there.
I personally felt, and said publicly, all along that I didn't think Harold Fish got a fair trial. Most here agree. So, fortunately, did the appellate court, which reversed his conviction and remanded it for a new trial, which the prosecutor's office in question chose not to pursue. That decision can also be found on findlaw.com. Interestingly, the bogus argument that hollow point bullets indicated malicious intent does not appear to have been among the appellate issues.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.