Apple River Stabbing Legal Analysis: The Jury Got Nicolae Miu’s Verdict Wrong!
April 18, 2024
The jury has reached a verdict in the Apple River stabbing case, finding Nicolae Miu guilty of first degree reckless homicide. He was also convicted on multiple counts of first degree reckless endangerment involving dangerous weapons, as well as one count of battery. Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel present a detailed legal analysis of the incident.
“I’m not happy about this one and I’ll just get that out there right now.”
– Attorney Victor
The Incident
While tubing on the Apple River in Wisconsin, approximately thirteen individuals surrounded Mr. Miu. The attorneys described the individuals as younger, stronger, intoxicated high school football players. The video footage shows Mr. Miu being physically overpowered by multiple assailants. He was pushed into the water, punched, kicked, and held down. Mr. Miu then pulled out a folding knife, stabbing multiple attackers. This led to the death of one of the teenagers.
“A pack of wild wolves have surrounded him.”
– Attorney Victor
The attorneys acknowledge that Mr. Miu was outnumbered in this confrontation. They emphasize that a witness established that Mr. Miu had recently undergone a quadruple bypass surgery. While Mr. Miu’s medical condition was unknown to the assailants, it significantly increased his vulnerability to physical harm and was relevant to the reasonableness analysis of his actions.
“The question is, is Mr. Miu at a risk of death, or serious physical injury?”
– Attorney Victor
Considering the number of aggressors, the unstable river environment, and the risk of drowning, the attorneys agree that the threat to Mr. Miu was both imminent and significant.
Legal Analysis
The attorneys contend that if it was believed that Mr. Miu faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself. The prosecution portrayed Mr. Miu’s actions as reckless by introducing jury instructions asking for recklessness charges, which the State argued was a lesser included offense, late in the trial.
The attorneys criticize this as an improper “sandbagging” tactic, which could become an issue on appeal. They argue that Mr. Miu’s actions cannot be considered reckless since he intentionally stabbed each assailant in self-defense. The attorneys claim this compromised the jury, resulting in an unjust verdict.
“Keep in mind, recklessness is when you consciously disregard a substantial risk that something bad is going to happen, you don’t want it to happen . . . but you take the chance and then it does happen.”
– Attorney Victor
Post Incident Conduct
Speaking with police: The attorneys explain that Mr. Miu’s first mistake was speaking to the police after the incident. Video evidence and witness testimony showed that he lied to officers and denied any involvement in the stabbing. The prosecutor then used Mr. Miu’s statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
“If he had called us at this point, we would have said ‘Shut up don’t talk to the cops.’”
– Attorney Marcantel
However, the attorneys argue that the video evidence alone should have been sufficient for the jury. Therefore, whether or not Mr. Miu lied should be irrelevant and should not have been considered.
Emotional testimony: The prosecutors introduced “spark of life” evidence – an emotional testimony from the victim’s mother intended to humanize the deceased. The attorneys criticize this approach as inflammatory and irrelevant during the guilt phase of the trial, arguing that it distracts jurors from evaluating the defendant’s guilt.
“This is irrelevant! This is calculated to get the emotions of those people on the jury out of control!”
– Attorney Victor
The attorneys emphasize that the victim’s mother should have been allowed to make statements during the sentencing phase, after the jury had already determined the defendant’s guilt.
General Advice
Avoid escalating conflicts; situational awareness is critical. In potentially hostile environments, the safest and most responsible choice is to leave immediately, even if the law does not impose a duty to retreat.
Do not speak to law enforcement without an attorney. Mr. Miu’s decision to speak to police without legal counsel and lie to officers significantly undermined his defense. The attorneys stress a fundamental rule: after any serious incident, remain silent and request an attorney immediately.
Be aware of the risks of jury decisions. Even when a defendant acts within the bounds of the law, jury outcomes can be unpredictable. Emotional influence, misinformation, or prosecutorial tactics may sway jurors. This case illustrates how self-defense claims can fail in court, even with supporting video evidence.
Bottom Line
While testifying can help humanize a defendant, the attorneys noted that Mr. Miu’s testimony was at times unpolished and poorly prepared, which further weakened his case.
“There were so many times where I just said, ‘I wish the guy had answered the question a little bit differently.’”
– Attorney Victor“
The attorneys encourage viewers to learn from this case, seek proper legal advice, and take preventive measures to avoid similar incidents. If you would like to know more about our law firm and how our self-defense protection program, Attorneys On Retainers, can help you, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
