And sometimes you are just guilty!
No sir, absolutely not. You are
proven[/i] guilty. The testimony in this case puts him there that night, but again, THAT'S IT.
I may be wrong and it may vary by state, you would know best. You really don't need to prove who pulled the trigger to fight reasonable doubt. You don't even have to prove he was there. Charles Manson is a perfect example if you ask me. The guy wasn't even present.
You're right, it depends.
Murder generally breaks down like this.
Murder 1: with intent to kill, premeditation or other aggravating factors
Murder 2: murder with intent to kill or severely harm, but with no premeditation/aggravating factors
Murder 3: "homicide by child abuse" in certain situations and "reckless/depraved heart" murder, which means you were so utterly careless with someone else's life, but had no intent to kill them.
Murder 4: aka "felony murder" you did not murder anyone, but a murder occurred and you participated in it in some non-homicidal way (very controversial - you could loan someone a car knowing they may use it to get away from a murder and you could still be charged with this)
Voluntary Manslaughter: Murder provoked by the eventual victim, but provocation doesn't rise to the level of triggering self defense
Involuntary Manslaughter: accidentally killing someone in a negligent way, but not a reckless way (reckless would be like pointing your loaded gun at someone while you clean the trigger of said gun, negligent would be something more like failing to assure that they were buckled in during a traffic incident or something similar thereto).
I've read that there may be Massachusetts law (cases) that say you don't have to prove he pulled the trigger, that's fine. They didn't. But the problem would be this: what if someone else pulled that trigger?
I can certainly see a charge of felony murder in this circumstance, and he would almost certainly be guilty of that: the defense admitted as much, as far as i can see. But murder first? Again, what if someone else pulled that trigger? it just... it doesn't seem to fit.
Charles Manson was convicted of murder under a california law similar to one we have here. "Hand of one is the hand of all" meaning, in the event that there was a conspiracy to murder someone, and one of the conspirators does it, then, all of the individuals can be found guilty of the murder. I don't think that exists in Mass, but I have no idea.