I like to know what are the elements of 1st degree attempted murder that prosecutor has to prove to the jury, or maybe if you can give me a website that I can find that information on.

I believe the main element is the planning, "malice of forethought and lack of justification (such as self defense)" - exact requirements vary somewhat from state to state.

We are in the state of Florida will that help

Murder Charge – Manslaughter – Homicide – First – Second – Third Degree Murder – Florida Law – Fort Lauderdale Lawyer – Miami Attorney (http://miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/homicide-murder.html)

Here is the exact law on murder, attempted is attempting to do thisStatutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2007->Ch0782->Section 04 : Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0782/SEC04.HTM&Title=-%3e2007-%3eCh0782-%3eSection%2004)

What your issue here is, the person used a weapon to try and kill individual one. Even though it did not hit him, there was an attmept made to kill him

So this is attempted felony murder, since it invovled a firearm one of the reasons it makes it 1st degree in FL ( but not in many other states, they should have tried to kill the person in another state)

But they hit someone else, so this falls under two reasons, first that person being hit could have caused their death, thus there was possible death or murder, this was done during the commission of another crime, the attempted murder of someone else. So this is attempted on the other person, if they did not die, but because of the use of a fire arm it was possible. So although it was accidental, to hit the wrong person, just hitting the wrong person is covered under case law of Fl as being an additional charge and if it was done during the commission of specific other crimes, and the attempted murder of someone else is one of those, they can also be charged for that attmpeted murder as 1st degree or felony attempted murder.

So yes it does sound like they used all the correct charges

This is a Fl supreme court case that has some similar issue that may help
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc96834.pdf

Well I get a different answer in brady vs. state of Florida

Did not Brady after it went to the Supreme Court deal with the withholding of evidence ? ** not sure if same Brady
If you will post a link t the brief I would review it, but remember the state can file any charge they want, they can charge him with high treason if they wanted to, in court they have to prove it,
And often in court the jury may have the option of finding him guilty at one of the lessor included charges, 2nd degree or other.

Also it is common to charge the highest charge at first, so that there is more room to deal for a plea bargain. Prior to the state of trial, if the grand jury held him over for trial on those charges, it will be at trial where you show these are not correct.

But I know this is your dad, but according to current case law, it does seem that the charges do hold, as for as to start trial. I would assume with enough evidence and witness that saw him shoot the gun, that there would be a plea agreement latter as to sentence unless this is a higher profile case

well i get a different answer in brady vs. state of florida



Yesterday you posted regarding a Brady MOTION - I researched and answered but today your question - and that thread - are gone.

Are you talking about a Brady MOTION or Brady vs Florida?

Sorry Judy , will try and find your post, there were a dozen ( seemed like it) separate threads from two separate people, I tried to combine them, delete out duplicate and/or similar posts.

I PM the poster and asked them to stop starting new similar threads, have not heard back from them.

Sorry Judy , will try and find your post, there were a dozen ( seemed like it) seperate threads from two seperate people, I tried to combine them, delete out duplicate and/or simular posts.

I PM the poster and asked them to stop starting new simular threads, have not heard back from them.


No, need to explain at all - the posts were certainly contradictory (to a certain extent) and confusing and two people had the identical set of circumstances. I'm just trying to weasel my way out of the Brady vs? Research - I'm pretty sure that a Brady Hearing is a bond/bail hearing and considered a "mini trial;" prosecution pretty much gets to state its case at it exists at that time and the Court decides whether to go forward AND whether to allow bond/bail.

I said not to represent yourself or a family member at an attempted murder trial - or any other trial, for that matter.