Opinion ID: 2062667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discussions Prior to Closing Argument

Text: It was the government's secondary theory  that Cowan was guilty of felony murder as an aider or abettor even if Giles did the shooting  that triggered defense counsel's limited request for instructions on self-defense and defense of another: THE COURT: Well, they are asking for self-defense. MR. COBB [prosecutor]: I don't know. THE COURT: They are. MS. SUPLER [defense counsel]: Your Honor, that would only be if the court allows the government to argue and give the instruction of the aiding and abetting theory for a felony murder. If the court doesn't then no. Our theory is that we did not do the shooting, therefore, we're not guilty for that reason alone. And we wouldn't need the self-defense or a defense of other instruction. Because, remember, we are asking the Court not to couch it in that the defendant used self-defense, but if the shooter used self-defense. See, that's perfectly consistent with our theory. If the court doesn't allow the aiding and abetting argument by the government, then we don't need those instructions because our defense is that we weren't the shooter. It was Sammy Giles. (Emphasis added). When the judge expressed some bewilderment, Cowan's attorney explained that if Mr. Giles shot in self-defense, and we can also be guilty because of his shooting, then we get the transferred self-defense intent. Counsel continued as follows: James Cowan did not have a gun in his possession and did not participate in a drug transaction. And, then, if the  and only if the court is going to allow the government the aiding and abetting theory on the felony murder, then we'll ask for the three instructions in the order I presented with the language I presented. (Emphasis added). The trial judge fully understood, and counsel for both parties agreed, that the government's request for an aiding and abetting instruction was limited to the felony murder count, and that the request for instructions on self-defense and defense of a third person were similarly limited (and also conditioned on the aiding and abetting instruction): THE COURT: Second degree murder only if the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Cowan that did the shooting. MR. COBB: Yes. THE COURT: Now, insofar as the felony murder, I will give aiding and abetting on it, government's theory that Cowan did the shooting, the defendant's theory that Giles did the shooting, but in any event, in any event, if Giles did the shooting or whoever did the shooting, it was done in self-defense, either of the person or of the other person. All right? MS. SUPLER: That's correct. (Emphasis added). At no time prior to closing argument did the defense ask for an instruction on self-defense or defense of a third person with respect to any offense other than felony murder. Moreover, Cowan's attorney emphasized several times that she did not want these instructions to be given if the court did not instruct on aiding and abetting. This was the posture of the case when counsel delivered their closing arguments.