The case Officer Michael Couture V. Commonwealth has been bought before the Virginia court of appeals, due to officer Couture filing an appeal. Michael Couture was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of Santanna Olavarria in 2008. However, officer Couture (the appellee) argues that the trial courts prejudiced his defense by incorrectly answering a question from the jury during deliberation (leagle.com). Officer Couture believes it was a sufficient amount of evidence proving it was self-defense in this case. According to the jury the amount of evidence provided at the time of trial; supports that officer Couture had no right to kill Santanna Olavarria.As ruled Officer Couture was found guilty of voluntary man slaughter, and the jury recommendations stands as no jail time with a $2500.00 fine.
In this case, the agreement was completely correct, the jury did have enough evidence to convict Officer Couture of voluntary manslaughter. The decision was based on officer Couture admitting he fired a shoot in self-defense and testifying he did not see a weapon, and the fact the suspect complied with all orders from the police officers. The suspect Olavarria showed no signs of resisting, in fact he raised both his hands asking officer Couture not to …show more content…
If the suspect Olavarria didn’t have the weapon in the car at the time of the traffic stop, the suspect probably would’ve been nervous or scared when officer Couture approached the vehicle. As a result, it caused the situation to get out of hand, with Olavarria losing his life due to officer Couture using deadly. Generally speaking, in this type of case, it has been known for regular citizens to get the maximum amount of time verses an office of the law. Finally, when a case is being appealed all laws should be laid out for people of the court and jury to understand