Hey, I’ve been trying to understand the difference in defense strategies for first-degree murder vs. first-degree felony murder with special circumstances in California. It seems like there’s a big difference in how each is handled. For first-degree murder, it looks like the focus is more on premeditation and intent to kill, which could lead to challenging the evidence, like questioning the defendant’s state of mind or presenting alibi evidence. But for felony murder with special circumstances, it seems like it’s more about the role in the felony, and whether special circumstances like financial gain are involved. Anyone here have any thoughts or know more about how each type of case is prepared? I’m really curious about the differences.
Yeah, you’re right. First-degree murder really focuses on proving the intent and premeditation. The defense could argue diminished capacity or lack of intent to kill. It’s all about trying to disprove that the murder was planned, or that the defendant wasn’t mentally capable at the time.
@Vic
Exactly. It’s all about breaking down the timeline of events and showing that it wasn’t a deliberate act. Could even bring in experts to testify on mental health.
For felony murder, they don’t even need to prove intent to kill. If the death happens during a felony like robbery or burglary, they can still get the murder charge. Special circumstances just make things even worse because it could lead to life without parole or worse.
@Alden
Right, and if the defendant wasn’t really involved in the felony or wasn’t the main person responsible, that can be a big part of the defense. They might argue that the defendant’s role was minor or that they weren’t even involved when the murder happened.
@Alden
Yeah, so if the defendant wasn’t the one pulling the trigger, they might be able to show they weren’t the main cause of the death. That could really change how the case is looked at.
One thing I’ve seen in felony murder cases with special circumstances is that they really dig into the defendant’s background. Things like youth, history of abuse, or coercion can be used to try and show that the defendant wasn’t fully responsible or to try and reduce the sentence.
@Harley
Yeah, that’s a good point. Humanizing the defendant can sometimes make a huge difference, especially when the case is about the penalty phase.
I agree with all this. The big thing is how much the defendant’s role in the underlying felony is emphasized in felony murder cases. If the defendant didn’t even know a murder was going to happen, the defense might focus on that to reduce charges.
@Oren
True. In those cases, proving lack of knowledge or participation in the murder can be key. That could change the whole case.
It’s really interesting how the approach changes based on whether the crime involves premeditation or happens during another crime. Each type requires a very different defense strategy.
Emerson said:
It’s really interesting how the approach changes based on whether the crime involves premeditation or happens during another crime. Each type requires a very different defense strategy.
Yeah, I hadn’t really thought about how much it depends on intent vs. the circumstances around the crime. Makes sense that each would need its own strategy.