Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Court of Criminal Appeals hears challenge to trial counsel over self‑defense instruction in Timothy McKinney case
Summary
At an oral argument in Jackson, Tennessee, attorneys debated whether trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to secure a self‑defense jury instruction after the trial judge ruled a statutory provision barred the defense when a third party was injured.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral argument in Jackson on a post‑conviction petition by Timothy McKinney challenging his trial and appellate counsel’s handling of a self‑defense instruction.
At the hearing, petitioner’s attorney Lance Chisholm said trial counsel conceded that a self‑defense instruction was unavailable after the trial judge relied on the statutory provision the transcript cites as "39 11 6 0 4." Chisholm told the court that trial counsel had said at trial, "I'm not familiar with 39 11 6 0 4, or the Jeremy Jarvis case," and later did not press the judge to adopt the interpretation Chisholm urged. Chisholm argued the statute should not have barred self‑defense for a transferred‑intent charge of attempted first‑degree murder and asked the court to reverse the post‑conviction…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
