Thanks for that legal context, Sparteye. I recall reading several articles by a William O'Barr, who wrote about the effects of various types of language on jurors (over-polite, hyper-correct, aggressive, etc.). He declared law to be a profession of words and lawyers students of language.

In the American legal system, more often than not, if a jury declares something murder (or a monopoly, or fraud, or a copyright infringement, etc.), then they've effectively extended the context of the word to include that act (regardless of what the OED says). Not much can overturn that declaration.

However, I don't dispute the act of murder. Just where it may have occurred. Whitman O'Neill's analysis that it was part of the scene is interesting.