Off. Raymond Bunn Murder Trial

[Sysop]

Greetings,

Can anyone provide me with an update on Raymond Bunn's case? I'm showing that his is one of the top cases for the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. Here are the two (2) links I found:

http://www.policedefense.org/

http://www.policedefense.org/bunn.html

Thanks to anyone who can provide me with some more information

Yet another reason not to work for a crappy agency like Atlanta. They have THE WORST turnover rate in the state and have trouble attracting good career officers. Why work for Atlanta when you can work for a nearby county police or smaller city making more money, more backup, and an administration that will back you up.
Atlanta PD admin sucks so does the mayor and city council, period. Crime will keep going up if you arrest police officers rather than the career criminal thugs like this guy who tried to murder police officers.

CASELAW UPDATE OCTOBER 17, 2008
SUPREME COURT

IMMUNITY; Standard for deciding O.C.G.A. §16-3-24.2 claim is preponderance of the evidence

Bunn v. State, Case No. S08A1132 (October 6, 2008)

Bunn, a police officer, has been indicted for murder. Bunn and his partner were on routine patrol when they saw a person who appeared to be committing a vehicle break-in. That person jumped into a van which began moving towards the officers who shouted for it to stop. It didn’t stop, and Bunn shot and killed the driver.

Bunn’s pre-trial motion for immunity under O.C.G.A. §16-3-24.2 was denied, and he appealed.

O.C.G.A. §16-3-24.2 generally provides that a person is immune from prosecution if his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances set out in the statutes concerning the defense of self, others, habitation, etc.

It must be decided, prior to trial, whether as a matter of law a person is immune from prosecution under O.C.G.A. §16-3-24.2. “As a potential bar to criminal proceedings … immunity represents a far greater right than any … affirmative defense which may be asserted during trial but cannot stop a trial altogether.”

The Supreme Court says that no clear standard of review has been promulgated for a trial court to use in deciding such an immunity claim, so “We do so today.”

Analogizing to the burden required of defendants who wish to avoid trial by showing that they are insane or incompetent, the standard the Court sets forth is that “to avoid trial, a defendant bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to immunity under O.C.G.A. §16-3-24.2 by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Since it did not appear that the trial court employed a preponderance of the evidence standard in denying Bunn’s immunity claim, the Court remands for the trial court to allow it to analyze his motion under this standard.

If a defendant does not win his pre-trial immunity claim, he is still entitled to raise at trial the same affirmative defense underlying the immunity claim, and the State would then have the well-established burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Hester, 283 Ga. 367 (2008); Foster, 283 Ga. 47 (2008); Fair, Case No. S08A0426 (July 14, 2008) (reported below); Boggs, 261 Ga. App. 104 (2003); Bishop, 271 Ga. 291 (1999).

[Comment: This case and Fair, Case No. S08A0426 (July 14, 2008) (below), establish significant procedural law supporting immunity claims. For one thing, it seems clear that a denial of an immunity claim is subject to direct appeal prior to trial.]

The trial judge was Bensonetta Tipton Lane, Fulton Superior Court. The Appellant was represented by Rodney S. Zell and Manubir S. Arora, Atlanta.

Judge Lane has had the case back since Oct 2008!!!! How long does it take to make a ruling??? Ahh another case of corrupt elected officials in ATL![/color]