Mr. Play Justice has essentially stated that the practice of permitting juries to reach a verdict on lesser included charges is not "right".I don't think it is right that lesser charges can be added during a trial. I know it can be an advantage for some and a disadvantage for others. Just doesn't seem right to change "mid-stream". Comments?
Now he moves the goal post, and quite ineffectually.
And because sometimes courts do not allow instruction of the jury on lesser included offenses **some of the time** that means the practice is improper **all of the time**?<quoted text>
But lesser charges are not always allowed to be added, are they? I thought it was up to the judge.
What is the rational basis for that premise?
"[I]t is settled that a jury should be given the entire range of possible verdicts in a case in which the evidence warrants the giving of the lesser included offenses,[and] it follows that defenses that are supported by a reasonable construction of the evidence should be given along with those same lesser charges." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 588 (1990).
But the Play Justice disagrees (because of the Zimmerman case, which he will vehemently deny.)