On October 22, 2010, Michiel Oakes was convicted of premeditated murder. The case took nearly a year to go to trial, and the trial itself lasted for several weeks. As the closing arguments came to their conclusion, the jury was sent to deliberate. Among the instructions they received was a legal definition of self defense:
Self Defense
It is a defense to a charge of murder that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction (emphasis added):
Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of the slayer when:
- The slayer reasonably believed that the person slain intended to inflict death or great permanent injury;
- The slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and
- The slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him at the time and prior to the incident.
The State has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
The Testimony
After multiple testimonies had been heard and the prosecution finally rested, Michiel was called to the stand to testify in his own defense. Michiel’s testimony consisted mainly of a retelling of the events leading up to and surrounding the attack by Mark Stover. Michiel spoke of Mark Stover inviting him into his home. He spoke of Mark becoming agitated and angry, finally storming away. When Mark returned, he was carrying a pistol, which he pointed at Michiel’s chest and fired. Michiel dove at Stover and the two fell to the ground, Stover’s gun discharging a second time. When Michiel stood, Stover lay dead, shot by his own weapon in Michiel’s desperate act of self-defense.
The Evidence
Through his cross-examination and the prosecution’s subsequent rebuttal, Michiel’s testimony stood uncontested by any piece of evidence. No part of his statement was contradicted or impeached, but was in fact corroborated by numerous other pieces of evidence, including police cadaver and tracking dogs, store surveillance videos and more. However, the single greatest piece of evidence in Michiel’s defense was his kevlar bullet-proof vest. Worn out of fear for Mark’s history and violent nature, Michiel’s vest saved his life, stopping the .22 caliber bullet fired by Mark. The police ballistics lab confirmed Michiel’s testimony, stating that the vest had, in fact, been shot, and further that the slug recovered did not match any firearm owned by Michiel.
What Went Wrong?
As we revisit the components of Self Defense given to the jurors in Michiel’s case, we see three requirements:
- Did Michiel reasonably believe that Mark intended to inflict death or great permanent injury?
- Did Michiel reasonably believe that Mark was imminently capable of accomplishing this intent?
- Did Michiel act as a reasonably prudent person would, in the given situation?
The answer to all three of these can only be yes. Michiel was shot in the chest by Mark Stover; this quite clearly communicates both intent and capability of Mark to inflict death or permanent injury. Michiel defended himself by diving at Stover and trying to gain control of the gun, and Stover was killed in the ensuing struggle.
With these facts standing by testimony and corroborating evidence, how could Michiel still be convicted of this crime? How could a jury of 12 reasonable, unbiased citizens come to the conclusion that Michiel, beyond any reasonable doubt, did not act in self-defense?
Michiel, his children, his parents, his colleagues, and his friends are all asking this same question.
We have a theory.
Free Oakes 