That makes no sense to me. It is like they are saying that if the jury finds him not guilty, then he is immune. If the judge decides that SB 396 applies, then it does not matter what the jury thinks as it is not up to them. I am sure if the prosecutors could prove the defense was not justified, they can tell the judge and he can rule that the defense was or was not valid, without the jury present.Prosecutors have argued that a jury should decide whether Briscoe acted in accordance with the law and that the matter should wait until trial.
Benefit of the doubt: They probably don't understand it (they also may have made a "tough on crime" statement to the press just to appease the masses in an election year). How many immunity statutes are there? They just can't run into very often. If they never had a case where somebody filed an immunity motion (which happens very rarely), they wouldn't know what to do with it until they researched it. Their initial reaction might very well be, "BS, just let the jury decide." In other words, they equate statutory immunity with affirmative defense. But, as we have discussed here quite a bit, there is a big, big difference.Malum Prohibitum said:Do these prosecutors really not understand this or are they playing ignorant because they do not like the law?