Se Defendendo was a Latin phrase indicating acquittal for murder based upon self defense.

I had previously written of this wonder cache of original documents from the Old Bailey (duly archived and translated into modern printing with pictures of the original documents) dating from 1674 to 1913.

Using this site's search mechanisms I was only able to locate 10 cases out of hundreds upon hundreds of cases where a defendant was charged with 'murther' and was acquitted on the basis of Se Defendendo.

Ten cases over a 238 year span?

Now we must remember that in any criminal justice system, there is first the decision to arrest.

I am sure that in some clear cases of self defense leading to the death of another, constables never made an arrest in the first place.

And I would bet that some arrestees presented to the prosecution were never prosecuted.

I would also point out that I have not mastered the art of the search in the mechanism provided by this magnificent site.

I would begin this discussion with the squibs. These are just paragraphs published by the Old Bailey that were meant to summarize proceedings. Although not as telling as some of the latter documents that appear to reproduce actual transcripts of testimony, so much may be gleaned from the squibs from a cultural standpoint.

John Dicrey, Killing > murder, 11th April 1716.

John Dicrey , Gent , of the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields , was indicted, for the Murder of David Maguier , by giving him a mortal Wound, with a Rapier, on the right Side of his Belly, near the Navel, of the Breadth of half an Inch and the Depth of 8 Inches, of which he instantly died . He was also indicted on the Coroner's Inquest, for the said Murder. All the Witnesses agreed, That the Deceas'd was a Person of very ill Behaviour when in Wine, and much dispos'd to quarrel; but gave the quite contrary Character of the Prisoner. Those who were Evidence to the Fact depos'd, the Prisoner and the Deceas'd were drinking Wine at a Tavern, where appear'd no Signs of a pre mediated Malice ; but the Prisoner going out, he was follow'd by the Deceas'd; and coming to a Place were there was a Descent, he took him by the Collar, and pull'd him down several Paces, and then said,'D - n je draw , or else I'll stick you, his own Sword being naked, with which he immediately push'd at the Prisoner, and wounded him (as the Surgeon sware) in the Lungs, upon which he fell down but getting up again, he retreated to the Wall and the Deceas'd making another Pass, thrust himself upon the Prisoner's Sword, which he drew just before for his own Defence: General Tatton, and other Honourable Gentlemen, appear'd in Behalf of the Prisoner; and the Jury brought it in Se Defendendo

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17160411-29-off142&div=t17160411-29#highlight

First we are informed that it was customary for autopsies to be performed. In all of these cases it was of import to record the size and substance and location of the deadly blow.

Second it was of primary importance to record the weapon or weapons used prior to the time of death.

Third, there always appears to be alcohol involved.

Fourth, the 'dance' of the actors becomes all important in deciding whether or not Se Defendendo could be held to apply as a defense.

Who took after whom first?

Was there a retreat by the defendant or the deceased prior to the killing blow?

And finally, the 'character' of the defendant as well as the character of the deceased were both of extreme importance in the outcome.

Here the deceased was found to have been of a person of very ill behavior when in wine.

Whilst the defendant had a general and honourable gentlemen to testify as to his credentials.

Patrick French, Killing > murder, 10th September 1712

Patrick French , of the Parish of St. James Clerkenwell , was indicted for the Murder of Ingram Thwaits , on the 14th of August last, by giving him a Mortal Wound under the right Pap, of the breadth of one Inch. and the depth of six Inches, of which Wound he instantly dy'd . He was also indicted upon the Coroner's Inquest for Manslaughter. The Evidence was, that on the Day aforesaid the Deceased and one Mr. Thornton being at Sadler's Wells , drank a Bottle of Cyder, and paid their Reckoning, and went away; and soon afterwards returning again, found the Prisoner and two other Gentlemen in the Box they had been in: The Deceased thereupon demanded his Place, which the Prisoner readily resign'd; but said afterwards, if he had thought it was not his Place, he wou'd not have parted with it so easily; whereupon the Deceased reply'd, He was a foolish Fellow to think he'd tell him a Lye; immediately upon which, Mr. French clapt his Hand upon his Sword, and drew it part out, and then the Deceased and he drew both, and made four or five Passes at each other, and the deceased fell. The Prisoner in his Defence said the Deceased drew first, and that he retreated as far as he could, and the Deceased was between him and the Door, so that he cou'd not avoid doing what he did in his own Defence; and produc'd several Witnesses who prov'd that the Deceased was a very passionate Man, and addicted to Quarreling; and, on the contrary, that the Prisoner was a very quiet honest Gentleman, and of very inoffensive Conversation. Upon a full hearing, the Jury gave their Verdict, that it was done in his own Defence

 

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17120910-28-off106&div=t17120910-28#highlight

This second squib underlines all of the factors I listed under the first.

Here it appears two drunks are fighting over a seat in a saloon. Hahahah

Here notice that the defendant was adamant that the deceased drew first!

And a retreat was involved.

And at another point in the action the deceased was alleged to have placed himself between the defendant and the door; thereby preventing an ultimate retreat.

In short, what was the mother to do?

One last squib for good measure:

Isaac Causabon, Killing > murder, 8th December 1708

Isaac Causabon , Gent. of St. Dunstan's in the West , was Indicted for the Murder of William Lee, by giving him one mortal Wound with a Rapier, in the left-side of his Belly on the 12th of September last, of which he languish'd 'till the 14th of the same, and then died : The Evidence for the Queen depos'd. That the Deceas'd with one Wilford and Noble, came out of the Kings Arm's Tavern in Fleet-street, between 6 and 7 at Night, and meeting the Prisoner with Mrs. Rudge in his Hand (her Husband being before) the Deceas'd chuck'd her under the Chin, and so went on, no ill Language passing between them; but going towards Fleet Ditch, the Prisoner and Mr. Rudge came up, and demanded Satisfaction for the Affront, and justled the Deceas'd and his Company into the Dragon Tavern: That Scuffling together along the Entry, the Prisoner gave the Deceas'd a Box on the Ear, which the Deceas'd return'd with a small Push; Then the Prisoner threw the Deceas'd at the Foot of the Stairs, and his Sword was then observ'd to be drawn; that the Company came up to the Deceas'd, and found him mortally wounded in the Belly, but it was not discern'd how it was given. The Prisoner in his Defence brought Evidence to prove, that handing Mrs. Rudge along Fleet-street, her Husband being then before, were met by the Deceas'd and 2 Men more; That the Deceas'd laid hold of her Waist, and would have taken her from the Prisoner; That being affrighted they were forc'd to carry her into the Green Dragon Tavern, where she fell into Fits; that the Deceas'd follow'd them in, and first gave the Assault. That he was very violent, and took the Prisoner by the Collar and struck him, and threw the Prisoner flat upon his Back; they then Scuffled together, and both fell down among some Hampers, and the Prisoners Sword was then drawn. That the Deceas'd being ask'd whether he had received any Wound? replied, I believe not. Not withstanding which, upon search, a Wound was discover'd upon his Belly, which was given by the Sword in the scuffle; but how was not known. The Jury considering the whole Matter, brought it in Se Defendendo

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17081208-38-off159&div=t17081208-38#highlight

In this delightful rendition a woman is involved; becoming part of the motive for violence.

But note as the dance of death progressed there was a point where the Deceased followed them in and first gave the assault!

Here is a short statute allowing self defense as a defense in a murder case:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065

(You might compare this section to MSA 609.06 which primarily applies to governmental authorities like the police)

But the case law on a state by state basis of course, makes the defense much more complicated.

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

12,000 to 13,000 gun-related homicides in one year is a staggering statistic. Even in a country of 320 million people. I suppose the NRA would respond that a large number of folks need killin'.

Here is just a segment from a Minnesota Supreme Court Case discussing 609.065:

STATE VS. EDWARDS

 

Under Minn.Stat. § 609.065 (2004), “[t]he intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized * * * except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death.” ²  In addition, the absence of aggression or provocation by the actor is required before self-defense may be claimed.  State v. Thompson, 544 N.W.2d 8, 12 (Minn.1996).   Further,

[t]he law does not permit or justify one who intends to commit an assault upon another to design in advance his own defense by instigating a quarrel or a combat with a view thereby to create a situation wherein the infliction of the intended injury will appear to have been done in self-defense.

State v. Love, 285 Minn. 444, 451, 173 N.W.2d 423, 427 (1970) (quoting trial court's instructions).   Nevertheless, if an aggressor withdraws from the conflict and communicates that withdrawal, expressly or impliedly, the right to claim self-defense is restored.  Bellcourt v. State, 390 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn.1986).

Evidence indicating that Edwards was the initial aggressor included testimony that he was driving around with a charged semiautomatic handgun, ready to be fired, on his lap;  that he was trying to resolve a drug-territory problem with Oliver;  that he gave Oliver a threatening look and twice initiated contact;  that when he put on gloves, the van owner “knew something was going to go down and it wasn't right” and said, “God, please don't let me get shot.  * * * Please don't do this in my car”;  and that he called Oliver over to the van and shot Oliver before Oliver pulled out his handgun. This provided a rational basis for the jury to conclude that Edwards “began or induced the incident that led to the necessity of using force in the defendant's own defense.”   CRIMJIG 7.07.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1185574.html

This case involved a regular shooting between drug gangs actually. A scene reproduced thousands of times across our nation.

What interests me is that the same variables in analyzing a homicide are present today just as much as they were present centuries ago.

Who started it?

Who had a chance to retreat?

Who did not have a chance to retreat?

What weapons were present on the person of the defendant as well as the deceased.

Who drew first?

Were the parties familiar with each other prior to the incidence?

What are the opinions regarding the characters of the defendant as well as the deceased.

DISCUSSION.

Trayvon Martin is causing this country to once again focus on the issue of homicides involving guns and children.

Besides the tens of thousands of people mobilizing in the form of protests; the right is now weighing in.

Beck (who else?) is attempting to look for previous evidence of the minor's 'misbehavior' for chrissakes.

Geraldo has weighed in on hoodies for chrissakes. (Remember the putative defendant is Hispanic! This was a Brown on Black homicide and not a White on Black homicide.)

WE DO NOT HAVE THE FILE. WE DO NOT HAVE MUCH EVIDENCE HERE TO MAKE A REASONED OPINION UPON GUILT OR INNOCENCE!

We have tapes of phone calls being made, of course.

We know that Martin had no weapon!

But there are a series of issues surrounding protocols.

The police evidently interviewed the defendant but let him loose with the gun and with his clothes.

CSI aint gonna be able to tell us much!

Standing one's ground is almost irrelevant here.

Martin had every right to be where he was and so did the putative defendant.

Thank God there has been some sort of independent counsel brought in to investigate and hopefully to prosecute.

It is up to a jury to make a decision here!

This is not meant to be a legal treatise.

My heart bleeds for Martin's family.

But my heart bleeds for 13,000 killed every year per gun play.

I only wrote this piece from a cultural perspective.

Homicides in the middle of the night committed by strangers is nothing new to man.