Mitigation Pleas: You're Doing It Wrong

[Zaune]

New York Post

In a bizarre courtroom speech, a Queen defense attorney said the life of a murdered transgender prostitute wasn’t worth much — and argued that her convicted killer shouldn’t be punished as if he had killed someone “in the higher end of the community.”

“A sentence of 25 years to life is an incredibly long period of time judge,” John Scarpa said Thursday as he asked a judge to go easy on his client, Rasheen Everett, for killing hooker Amanda Gonzalez-Andujar in 2010.

“Shouldn’t that be reserved for people who are guilty of killing certain classes of individuals?”

Then, taking callousness to a new level, he said: “Who is the victim in this case? Is the victim a person in the higher end of the community?”

Queens Supreme Court Justice Richard Buchter scolded Scarpa as he sentenced Everett to 29 years in prison.

“This court believes every human life in sacred,” he said. “It’s not easy living as a transgender, and I commend the family for supporting her.”

Everett, 32, was convicted of strangling Gonzalez-Andujar last month. They had met through an ad, and he was allegedly shocked to find she had male genitalia.

Throughout the proceedings, Scarpa stunned the victim’s family as he detailed her sexual past.

“Amanda was engaged in a life of prostitution, life of drug use, HIV exposure,” Sharpa said. “She was having sex with other individuals knowing she had the chance of spreading diseases.”

The shameless Everett even chuckled throughout the emotional testimony of the victim’s brother, Ruben Andujar.

“The pain my family feels is unbearable,” Ruben had said. “It’s all like a nightmare, and I’m still waiting to wake up.”

Butcher blasted Everett, who declined to speak when the judge gave him the chance.

“The defendant is coldhearted and violent menace to society,” he said.

Everett winked at loved ones in court before he was taken away.

The only good part of this story is the world of hurt the lawyer's going to be in when his Bar Association hears about this.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I've already seen a bunch of people argue that the lawyer was just doing his job by trying everything in the law to help his client out. So unless there's specific rules that he was breaking I'm not exactly confident he's going to experience any consequences for what he did

[PKRudeBoy]

Well, if he wants to start assigning different values for the lives of different classes of people, I say we take a page from the classics and "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Or at least the really sleazy defense ones. I know that a lawyer has a duty to represent their client to the best of their ability, but a statement like that is so far out of the bounds of human decency that it astounds me.

[Ralin]

Heard about this elsewhere. Sadly, given popular views of the transgendered you really can't even say it was such a bad gamble on the lawyer's part. I'm pleasantly surprised that the judge called him out on it at all. I suppose that counts as progress?

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way.

There's doing your best to defend your client, and then there's saying utter filth that is likely to backfire. I think the stereotypical "sleazy defense lawyer" has problems with this, because their sleaziness shows and may actually bias juries against them. Few jurors are going to appreciate being lectured on how the plaintiff should be awarded an obviously disproportionate amount of money, or told that some people are more equal than others.

[Scrib]

Heard about this elsewhere. Sadly, given popular views of the transgendered you really can't even say it was such a bad gamble on the lawyer's part. I'm pleasantly surprised that the judge called him out on it at all. I suppose that counts as progress?

I don't think that the judge could do anything but call him out at that point. It's one thing to have private prejudices that work against the victim, it's another to have it put so directly and publicly. On a moral level even the prejudiced person may shrink and on a political level it's simply not viable to be seen to nod along with this guy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, if he wants to start assigning different values for the lives of different classes of people, I say we take a page from the classics and "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Or at least the really sleazy defense ones. I know that a lawyer has a duty to represent their client to the best of their ability, but a statement like that is so far out of the bounds of human decency that it astounds me.

First of all, this is very hypocritical.

Secondly, being a lawyer or a scumbag is obviously not a good reason to murder someone.

Also, why did you single out defence lawyers? Its not like prosecutors are all great.

Edit: I know you're probably not completely serious. But still.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I think it's funny that the judge was so pissed off that he piled even more years on the shithead's client. The man rocks.

[The Romulan Republic]

The murderer should have gotten life in prison. Was that not an option?

[Scrib]

I think it's funny that the judge was so pissed off that he piled even more years on the shithead's client. The man rocks.

I don't see that hinted at anywhere in the article.And if the lawyer did indeed piss of the judge to the point that he did do that, no, not awesome at all. I would rather judges keep their emotions in check.

[Spekio]

As a lawyer, In sympathyze with the defense attorney. I once was complicit with a Bank not returning ~500k to a mentally-ill old lady, legally tutored by one of her daughters, because her other daughter forged her signature. I was defending the Bank.

He tried the best he could, using society's prejudices to help his client. But I commend the Judge not falling for it.

[Ralin]

I don't think that the judge could do anything but call him out at that point. It's one thing to have private prejudices that work against the victim, it's another to have it put so directly and publicly. On a moral level even the prejudiced person may shrink and on a political level it's simply not viable to be seen to nod along with this guy.

I was going to say I dunno man, trans panic is still a defense that gets used, but maybe you're right.

Shithead lawyer aside, this is a trial that turned out well. The killer was convicted and given an appropriately heavy sentence, and a judge publically denounced the defense they used, so like I said, progress.

(Was going to post this earlier, but my internet died)

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

As a lawyer, In sympathyze with the defense attorney..

The lawyer's argument contributes to people being murdered.

Trans women of colour who are sex workers are seen as just about the least human and most expendable people in our country. They have to deal with so much abuse and hardship from this from every part of society (including those who are tasked with defending them) and because of it they are assaulted, raped, forced to suicide, and murdered at tremendously high rates.

If your client could possibly be saved a few years of jail if someone innocent were killed, would you do it? Because that's what this lawyer was doing.

[Ralin]

The lawyer's argument contributes to people being murdered.

So does getting people acquitted of murders they committed in general.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I think it's funny that the judge was so pissed off that he piled even more years on the shithead's client. The man rocks.

I don't see that hinted at anywhere in the article.

Here, then:

“A sentence of 25 years to life is an incredibly long period of time judge,” John Scarpa said [...]

Queens Supreme Court Justice Richard Buchter scolded Scarpa as he sentenced Everett to 29 years in prison.

And if the lawyer did indeed piss of the judge to the point that he did do that, no, not awesome at all. I would rather judges keep their emotions in check.

Normally, I would agree with you. But both the defendant and his lawyer are so objectively terrible that the judge has every right to be pissed at them.

[Ahriman238]

Sadly, there are lots of people who wouldn't raise a word of protest, or so much as an eyebrow, at the idea of a prostitute's life having less value than an individual in a "higher level of the community." At first reading, I thought that's what the lawyer had meant, and perhaps I gave him too much credit. He certainly seemed to be aiming for the idea of Gonzalez-Andujar as some kind of parasitic Typhoid Mary.

Mr. Everett is personally reprehensible, openly chuckling during the victim's brother's testimony to her character, winking at the family and so on. However, he is entitled to the best defense his lawyer can provide within very few limits (like tampering with or concealing evidence.) His barrister's arguments exceed good taste and common sense, but I do not think they will have professional consequences, outside of perhaps costing him a little business.

[Scrib]

I think it's funny that the judge was so pissed off that he piled even more years on the shithead's client. The man rocks.

I don't see that hinted at anywhere in the article.

Here, then:

“A sentence of 25 years to life is an incredibly long period of time judge,” John Scarpa said [...]

Queens Supreme Court Justice Richard Buchter scolded Scarpa as he sentenced Everett to 29 years in prison.

And if the lawyer did indeed piss of the judge to the point that he did do that, no, not awesome at all. I would rather judges keep their emotions in check.

Normally, I would agree with you. But both the defendant and his lawyer are so objectively terrible that the judge has every right to be pissed at them.

Heh,that slipped by me.

As for the judge, it's not that he was harsh. I just don't think that he should be that changeable. And I don't believe in letting bad behavior and...well,picking easy targets because you know most people can't muster any outrage.There's always some asshole who you think deserves everything they're going to get, the problem is that you rapidly start to disagree when this mindset is expanded.

He took his time and thought out a sentence, I assume logically. Some defense lawyer should not be able to sway him because he was pissed.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

His barrister's arguments exceed good taste and common sense

This isn't a matter of "bad taste" or "poor common sense". People are hurt, deprived of livelihood, humiliated, pushed into danger, imprisoned, and killed because of attitudes that this defense helps reinforce.

Not only that, but unless I misunderstand precedent (and I may easily be doing so; someone correct me if I am), had this gone through, it would've helped set up a legal underclass where people who are already made incredibly vulnerable by society are legally declared to be worth less and more acceptable to kill.

[Ahriman238]

His barrister's arguments exceed good taste and common sense

This isn't a matter of "bad taste" or "poor common sense". People are hurt, deprived of livelihood, humiliated, pushed into danger, imprisoned, and killed because of attitudes that this defense helps reinforce.

First, let me say I absolutely agree. At the same time, it's not the lawyer's job to worry about the fabric of society or the vast multitudes of people in bad situations, or even the potential future repercussions of his arguments (though all the good lawyers keep these things in mind.) He is getting paid to keep his client out of prison, to do or say whatever it takes without breaking the law.

He advanced a (terrible) argument, as is proper for a man in his profession and position. The judge slapped him down, and that too is right and just, because it really was a reprehensible argument.

Not only that, but unless I misunderstand precedent (and I may easily be doing so; someone correct me if I am), had this gone through, it would've helped set up a legal underclass where people who are already made incredibly vulnerable by society are legally declared to be worth less and more acceptable to kill.

It would give a lot more ammunition to anyone in the future trying to make the same or a similar argument. Enough ammo to upturn centuries of legal precedent and arguably the very roots of common law? Hell No. Every law student, lawyer and judge in the UK would be falling over themselves to be the first to shred it and get their names published, and widely known as dragonslayers striking down the corrupt and misguided precedent.

But it didn't go, and probably could never have gone, that far. This time, the system worked. The judge granted the argument all the consideration it deserved, and struck it down. The whole thing really is a tempest in a teacup. Well, not the part where a young woman is dead and a man imprisoned, but justice is served and the UK isn't going to be issuing hunting licences for transsexuals anytime soon. So I really don't see where the outrage is coming from except in the sense of "I can't believe this idiot had the nerve to say such a thing, in public and as a matter of record." and I can't really muster much fury for that. Lots of people say stupid, careless, horrible things in public, and they rarely get immediately rebuffed like this guy was.

[Spekio]

As a lawyer, In sympathyze with the defense attorney..

The lawyer's argument contributes to people being murdered.

Trans women of colour who are sex workers are seen as just about the least human and most expendable people in our country. They have to deal with so much abuse and hardship from this from every part of society (including those who are tasked with defending them) and because of it they are assaulted, raped, forced to suicide, and murdered at tremendously high rates.

If your client could possibly be saved a few years of jail if someone innocent were killed, would you do it? Because that's what this lawyer was doing.

I have the duty to give the best representation possible. Ahriman has it right:

First, let me say I absolutely agree. At the same time, it's not the lawyer's job to worry about the fabric of society or the vast multitudes of people in bad situations, or even the potential future repercussions of his arguments (though all the good lawyers keep these things in mind.) He is getting paid to keep his client out of prison, to do or say whatever it takes without breaking the law.

He advanced a (terrible) argument, as is proper for a man in his profession and position. The judge slapped him down, and that too is right and just, because it really was a reprehensible argument.

It is morally repugnant, but I must say I could see myself doing the same.This comes from a guy representing a transexual teenager trying to get recognized her right to use the female toilets in school, pro bono.

I am a civil lawyer, and have, many times, argued for different interpretations of the same law, to the best interest of my client, under the the principle of social adequation.

[Simon_Jester]

What is social adequation?

[Ahriman238]

What is social adequation?

Basically everyone does their part, and keeps the machine of society running smoothly. The police, firefighters, EMTS, doctors and so on all go to work, work to an acceptable standard and so our lives are all safer. For you and I, we provide the best education we can with the time and resources available, and trust our peers in other subjects and later years to do the same, or at least not undo all our hard work. For lawyers in the adversarial process, you fight for your client at your very best, trusting that things will work out because you have an opponent to balance things out and an impartial judge. Therefore, by going all out for your client and doing things like saying "well, is one hooker's life really worth 25 years of my clients?" you aren't gaming or destroying the system, you are a vital part of society doing exactly what you're supposed to.

[Simon_Jester]

OK. Never heard the term before.

Now, side note: anyone who thinks this happened in the UK is wrong; it happened in Queens, which is part of New York City.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

In case people aren't aware, this is the same city where trans women of colour are frequently thrown in jail for days by police under "suspicion of prostitution", in a country where trans women in general and trans women of colour in particular suffer massive discrimination-created unemployment (and thus often do end up doing sex work to survive), and are harrassed every day and murdered regularly because they're not seen as human as most people.

That's the same sort of situation Scarpa is giving support to. It doesn't matter if the prosecution sends their own counterargument; it's being given publicly and listened to by many and being given credence by many.

People who say "well that's just how the system is", this is the same system that encourages rape survivors not to report to the police because defense attorneys Do Their Job and send out arguments that systematically bias the system as a whole and ruin the lives of the survivors in trial in particular. Maybe defense attorneys should have arguments they can't make.

[Ralin]

If a defense attorney didn't make the argument they could hear it on talk radio. Or from their friends and family. Or from their politicians. Or their preacher. Or online. So unless you think that certain arguments should be banned outright then no, defense attorneys shouldn't be prohibited from making any argument they think will help their clients, and I don't want to see a world where you're the speech police and get to decide which ideas people shouldn't be allowed to listen to.