sorry if that's what came across... NO one can say conclusively downed thug was dead or alive.
the undisturbed blood under his head only proved thug didn't move again after hitting the floor.
my bet is that the jury never heard testimony that it's impossible to determine time of death to units fine as 30 seconds. they only heard testimony from ME that he was still alive at time of five shots. normal folks picked for juries would not know it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds. but the Medical examiner certainly does.
since NO one can state conclusively if thug with alive or dead at time of five shots.... the benefit of doubt belongs to Ersland.
a jury convicted Ersland based on the testimony they heard... what do you think the odds of they heard testimony it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds, thereby invalidating ME's testimony that he was alive.
the fact is NO one knows if thug was alive or dead at time of five shots. evidently the jury never heard this or they would have never convicted with doubts remaining.
guess you should've represented him ,then you could have made the jury understand what his obviously incompetent attornies couldn't. when you contend that person was still a threat and thats why you shot him some more ,then would it make sense to claim he was already dead too.his actions were indefensible thats why he lost
p.s. i in no way endorse sooner state pawn