How I Beat a Murder Charge by Questioning Assumptions

How I Beat a Murder Charge: Sometimes the Most Important Question Is "Did My Client Really Cause the Death?"

When most people think of a murder case, they picture someone who causes another person's death directly—a shooting, a stabbing, or a fatal beating. But not every case is that simple.

I recently defended a client who was charged with murder after another man died more than six weeks after a fight. The prosecution claimed the fight started a chain of events that ultimately led to the man's death. At first glance, that sounded straightforward.

It wasn't.

The more I dug into the evidence, (if you’re picturing me late at night, surrounded by files, coffee, and a desk lamp, like in an 80s movie, you’d be right) the more I realized the prosecution's theory wasn't built on proof. It was built on assumptions. My job was to separate those assumptions from the actual evidence.

The Prosecution's Theory

The prosecution alleged that my client assaulted the victim, causing a broken hip.

The victim underwent hip replacement surgery. Weeks later, he developed what the prosecution claimed was a MRSA infection. According to the medical examiner, that infection turned into sepsis, which caused the victim's death.

Therefore, they argued, my client committed murder.

The problem was that every step in that chain required proof—and several of those links simply didn't exist.

I Looked at the Medical Evidence

The prosecution's entire murder theory depended on one proposition:

The victim died from MRSA sepsis that resulted from surgery caused by the assault.

So I asked a simple question:

Did the medical evidence actually prove that?

It didn't.

The preliminary hearing testimony contained several significant gaps.

The medical examiner acknowledged that infections can enter the body in different ways. He admitted he could not rule out that the victim already had an infection before hospitalization. He admitted he couldn't say exactly where or when the infection was acquired. He admitted treatment could have worked had the victim returned to the rehabilitation facility as instructed.

Those admissions alone created serious problems with the prosecution's theory of causation.

Then the Records Became Even More Interesting

I obtained the underlying laboratory records and autopsy materials the medical examiner had relied upon.

Those records raised even more questions.

The prosecution repeatedly referred to a deadly MRSA infection.

But the postmortem cultures did not actually identify MRSA. They identified ordinary Staphylococcus aureus without documented methicillin resistance. Multiple other organisms were also present, raising legitimate questions about whether the cultures reflected postmortem changes rather than the cause of death itself.

In other words, the testimony at the preliminary hearing was considerably stronger than the underlying medical records themselves.

That distinction matters. A criminal charge—especially murder—cannot rest upon conclusions that aren't supported by the underlying evidence.

The Victim Made His Own Medical Decisions

Another issue received surprisingly little attention.

After surgery, the victim developed an infection.

Doctors performed another procedure and recommended that he return to a skilled nursing facility for several weeks of intravenous antibiotics.

He refused.

Instead, he went home.

According to the evidence, he never returned for follow-up care.

He apparently left the wound untreated while living in an extremely unsanitary environment.

Even the medical examiner acknowledged that continued treatment could have cured the infection.

That raised an important legal question.

At what point does someone else's independent decision become the real cause of the outcome?

California law recognizes that not every event following an assault remains legally attributable to the original defendant. Sometimes later events become so independent and so significant that they break the chain of legal causation.

I did not really raise that issue, but I had it in my back pocket if we went to trial.

There Was One More Major Problem

The victim suffered from severe cardiovascular disease.

Two major coronary arteries were completely blocked.

He also suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Even the medical examiner acknowledged those conditions could worsen infections.

The Turning Point

I retained an independent forensic pathologist who concluded that the medical evidence actually pointed toward sudden cardiac death from severe cardiovascular disease rather than proven MRSA sepsis. He also noted the absence of microscopic findings typically associated with sepsis and explained why the postmortem bacterial findings were medically questionable.

The prosecution had treated one possible explanation as though it were the only explanation.

In criminal law, that's not enough.

Criminal Cases Are Built One Link at a Time

One of the themes I emphasized throughout the case was simple:

The prosecution's theory only worked if every link in its chain held together.

They had to prove:

• my client caused the hip fracture;
• the fracture required surgery;
• the surgery caused the infection;
• the infection was actually MRSA;
• the MRSA entered the bloodstream;
• the infection—not other medical conditions—caused death; and
• nothing afterward broke the chain of causation.

When I examined each link individually, several were unsupported.

When enough links fail, the entire chain fails.

Why This Matters

People often assume criminal defense lawyers simply argue that their clients "didn't do it."

That's rarely how serious cases work.

Sometimes the fight is over intent.

Sometimes it's identification.

Sometimes it's constitutional rights.

And sometimes, as in this case, it's something far more technical: whether the prosecution can actually prove that one event legally caused another.

Medical causation cases are among the most challenging cases in criminal law because they require understanding both the law and the underlying science. You have to know how to cross-examine medical experts, read laboratory records, understand pathology reports, and identify when a conclusion goes beyond what the evidence actually proves.

That's exactly what I did here.

When someone's freedom depends on whether the prosecution can prove every element of murder, assumptions aren't enough. Evidence is.