"Dave in Maine," et al., having only been around the court system, practicing attorneys, and state and federal judges for some 45-years, and having during that time authored many bills that later became civil or criminal law in the State of Illinois, informs me that a number of misapprehensions concerning self-defense issues are prevalent. Although the subject is, however, understandably confusing and apparently misunderstood.
It's the circumstances in these types of cases that either works for or against the defendant, or for or against the prosecution. However, if the defendant's attorney believes before trial that his client is surely doomed simply because he chose to purchase from a store or concoct for himself more effective ammunition, such self-defeating attitudes do tend to get the hapless defendant convicted--or worse, create a situation where a plea agreement can be foisted on him. His attorney might even believe that what the defendant did was somehow morally wrong and his self-defense measures unjustified, in which case the attorney never should have accepted the defendant's case. Indeed, we are not discussing premeditated murder here, we are instead addressing self-defense, I had thought. Preparation for self-defense is not a crime or indicative of mindset. Nor would it be wise for a defendant to hire any defense attorney who considers self-defense to be indefensible, which opinion seems to be mildly suggested as well.
There is a trend these days for the prosecution to overcharge defendants (Here, for example, federal conspiracy charges are an overused but 'popular' way to force plea agreements.). The overarching problem is that too few younger attorneys have trial experience because some 90% of criminal cases are pleaded. So it can be off-putting for some to have to defend clients at jury trial. And cases of self-defense with a firearm especially, which a significant portion of the populace object to as always unjustified, can be daunting to engage.
It needs to be reiterated that any attorney who puts his client on the witness stand in a criminal case should be looked on with a great deal of suspicion as to his professional judgment. The idea that a criminal defendant is going to be made or allowed to self-incriminate himself by taking the witness stand on the advice of counsel is ludicrous. It isn't going to happen.
If the shooting is justified under the prevailing circumstances by law, the defense attorney should be willing and able to defend his client quite well. As you know, the defendant does not have to prove his innocence; it is instead the prosecutor who has to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Any reasonable doubt and the client should be found innocent, whether tried by jury or before the court at the bench. It is the job of the skillful defense attorney to argue and inculcate and thereby instill reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurist or in the minds' of the members of the jury. Justice usually prevails.
I hereby rest my ruminations and my case.
Regards,
Edwardian
