For over 30 years New Jersey’s courts have been relying on a Model Jury Voluntary Intoxication Charge that instructs the jury that: (1) If they accept a defendant’s evidence of voluntary intoxication for them to acquit on murder and (2) then determine if the prosecutor has proven manslaughter.  Those instructions are flawed because recently I found 100 year old cases such as State v. Wilson, 60 N. J. L. 171, 184-185 (1897) & State v. Warner, 56 N. J. L. 686, 687 (1894), which states the jury is to be instructed: If they accept a defendant’s evidence of Voluntary Intoxication for them to acquit on murder and convict on manslaughter.

Since it was the defense who presented evidence to reduce murder to manslaughter, means if the prosecution is charged with proving manslaughter then the prosecution is charged with proving the relief the defense seeks.  That would be a conflict of interest for the prosecutor to be charged with proving the relief the defense seeks.

Can you present this argument or file an amicus brief on my behalf?