Admitted Terrorist allowed to plead Justifiable Homicide.

[Serafine666]

As a conservative and as a lawyer I am not screeching about any "legislating from the bench". People, it is called the common law system. It has virtues and, all too often, faults like this. That's why there is an appeal system.

Doubtless, you are quite conservative but Sanchez was more referring to American conservatism than "conservatives" generally.

Personally, this dude should be tried for murder, pure and simple. There's ample evidence of actus reas and mens rea. Having dipped my toe into prosecution work at one time, I would have been gungho about pursuing this one.

I'm certain that most prosecutors would be plenty happy to go after anyone who waked into a church and shot an unarmed old man. Other facts of the case, like the fact that the victim was an abortion provider, are superfluous.

I am constantly amazed how little the average joe knows about their legal system. They are, after all, the rules of the game.

You and pretty much anyone who bothers to study the law in any amount of detail.

NB I have always been a solid supporter of abortion rights. One should not necessarily confuse conservatism with the religious right though many in the States and even here try to conflate the two.

Sanchez and others who are using the term are not conflating the general characteristics of conservatism with the religious right... they're referring to the general characteristics of American conservatives whose interests tend to conflate strongly with those of the religious right for a multitude of reasons. There's a really good reason "many in the States" conflate conservatives and the religious right... the two are generally very strongly related in America.

[JBG]

Good points Serafine666.

I hope this gets sorted out. Its just that in my opinion this should be an insanity plea or a trial for pre-meditated murder.

[Serafine666]

Good points Serafine666.

I hope this gets sorted out. Its just that in my opinion this should be an insanity plea or a trial for pre-meditated murder.

I cannot imagine how an insanity plea could be worked out. If you could somehow establish religious fervor as a disease or defect (and, in fact, there are many who see it this way), I could see someone successfully pleading "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" but short of that, the murderer was not reportedly mentally defective. He had the mental capacity to discover where Tillman went to church, acquire an appropriate weapon, go into that church, fire that weapon multiple times with the intent of killing, and attempting to flee the scene and conceal his crime which indicates that he knew his actions to be wrong. I just don't see an insanity plea coming out of the facts we have available to us.

[Gil Hamilton]

I would think that JBG's notion is not that it would work, but it's the guys best bet that isn't a clear travesty. Since there is no credible way the defense can state that the guy didn't do it entirely, their only hope for their client is mitigation. Otherwise, all they would have is to plead "No Contest" and throw their client at the mercy of the court (in terms of justice, I think they should of done this).

However, his defense decided not to pull this. Since they can't prove that he was falsely accused and they can't likely prove he's legally a whackadoodle, they are doing the slimy thing and going to try to prove that he was right, and damn the consequences if they win.

[Gil Hamilton]

A word about the defence. Prosecutors here, indeed any government agency involved in litigation, are supposed to be "model litigants". No such stricture applies to defences. Their job is to, to use the local phrase in criminal law, "put the prosecution to the test". Any loophole is exploited. That is most proper as it uncovers deficiencies in the prosecution case at law and of the laws themselves as drafted or as interpreted up to that point. And of course the judges are bound to apply the law, as they interpret it.

I am constantly amazed how little the average joe knows about their legal system. They are, after all, the rules of the game.

It's not that people don't know the rules to the game, it's that people think that it is morally bankrupt, because it ceases to become "put the prosection to the test" and more "make up any possible lie to get someone who transparantly committed a crime back on the streets". It's the "zealot defense" principle that causes teenaged girls to be berated in court by defense attorneys claiming they were sluts and ASKING to be violently raped. If you can't see the problem with this, note that this is why rape is dramatically underreported for the specific reason that rape victims are afraid of becoming victims of the court system as well as their attacker (and why various law enforcement agencies have started programs to help these victims believe that justice is possible for them).

Moreoever, it leads to bullshit like the defense is using in this case that this yahoo should receive a manslaughter charge for walking into a chruch and opening fire on an old man because the defendant really thought it was a good idea. Can you imagine if the defense manages to win this one and it is preceived as a viable defense? Wait to go, legal system, you've just put other doctors and nurses in danger from lunatics who think they can get away with it because they honestly thing they are right.

You are a lawyer. You know full well that crime is kept down most efficiently if the potential criminals believe that there is no hope of them getting away with their crime. It's not that people don't understand that a defense lawyer has no stricture defining their behavior, but hates them for the sleazy travesties they commit to undermine the truth and believe that they should be forced to conform to an ethical standard beyond "win case at all costs, no matter how dishonest".

NB I have always been a solid supporter of abortion rights. One should not unecessarily confuse conservatism with the religious right though many in the States and even here try to conflate the two.

You are also Australian. In the United States, they are very much coupled.

[Serafine666]

I would think that JBG's notion is not that it would work, but it's the guys best bet that isn't a clear travesty. Since there is no credible way the defense can state that the guy didn't do it entirely, their only hope for their client is mitigation. Otherwise, all they would have is to plead "No Contest" and throw their client at the mercy of the court (in terms of justice, I think they should of done this).

However, his defense decided not to pull this. Since they can't prove that he was falsely accused and they can't likely prove he's legally a whackadoodle, they are doing the slimy thing and going to try to prove that he was right, and damn the consequences if they win.

It's moments like these that make me pity defense attorneys. Someone must defend the client; this is a constitutional requirement. The defense must also be competent or the verdict is nullified. How do you competently defend a person who is not mentally defective and quite clearly committed the crime of which they are accused... and still look yourself in the mirror in the morning? There are, of course, slimy defense attorneys who don't care what the client did or about the evidence but just want to win for their own personal prestige but those are not the types I feel some level of pity for.

[Highlord Laan]

It's moments like these that make me pity defense attorneys. Someone must defend the client; this is a constitutional requirement. The defense must also be competent or the verdict is nullified. How do you competently defend a person who is not mentally defective and quite clearly committed the crime of which they are accused... and still look yourself in the mirror in the morning? There are, of course, slimy defense attorneys who don't care what the client did or about the evidence but just want to win for their own personal prestige but those are not the types I feel some level of pity for.

If falls entirely on the definition of "vigorous defense" and how DA's do their jobs. Far too many go by the line "We're here for an innocent verdict" since every victory they pull off gets them more money. Thats all 99.99% of the people working as lawyers want, more green. Some extreme few are there to defend the law/system, but they're so few and far between that they may as well not exist.

By my view, the Defense isn't there to get a Not Guilty. They're there to represent their client, and make sure his trial is fair. They should be turning over every piece of evidence, talking to every witness, questioning every law enforcement officer, and doing everything in his power to make sure that every I is dotted, every T crossed, and that every step of the arrest and investigation has been absolutely immaculate. The defense is there to "what if" everything. If everything in the case has been done right, then the evidence will speak for itself one way or another, which is what the verdict really rests on.

Persecutors are to do the same thing, but they present the evidence to the court. Their job is to second guess everything, but then had it all off the the defense and jury to look over it. Again, if the case has been done right, then the evidence needs no other representation.

Far too may lawyers on both sides are actively taking sides, and are in it only for the money. Which is sad, as a legal profession could be an honorable one, if it wasn't nothing more than a cash cow for people good at playing the jury and pressing emotional buttons. Too bad there isn't a way to enforce neutrality from the beat cop and lawyer all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Law is supposed to be a gray and equal arbiter for all, not a plaything for showmen.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's moments like these that make me pity defense attorneys. Someone must defend the client; this is a constitutional requirement. The defense must also be competent or the verdict is nullified. How do you competently defend a person who is not mentally defective and quite clearly committed the crime of which they are accused... and still look yourself in the mirror in the morning? There are, of course, slimy defense attorneys who don't care what the client did or about the evidence but just want to win for their own personal prestige but those are not the types I feel some level of pity for.

Why pity them? These guys chose to do it and they, of their own free will, choose slimy tactics like the one in the OP or the famous "she deserved it, the slut" defense. You can mount a defense while still being ethical, and any lawyer (in an ideal world) first priority should be the truth and to justice, not "win the case at all costs, even when I full well know I'm setting someone who is possibly a monster free". I've heard plenty of lawyers try to spin that the "zealot defense" is justice, just on a really abstract level, but that is simply not convincing when you see the practical result.

[JBG]

Good replies. Four failed attempts to respond on an aged iMac (now they tell me not to smoke)...

Back tomorrow on the work computer.

[Serafine666]

Why pity them? These guys chose to do it and they, of their own free will, choose slimy tactics like the one in the OP or the famous "she deserved it, the slut" defense. You can mount a defense while still being ethical, and any lawyer (in an ideal world) first priority should be the truth and to justice, not "win the case at all costs, even when I full well know I'm setting someone who is possibly a monster free". I've heard plenty of lawyers try to spin that the "zealot defense" is justice, just on a really abstract level, but that is simply not convincing when you see the practical result.

I pity the ethical ones because first, they're tagged with the same bad name as the slimy ones even if they're genuinely out to do a good job. Second, because being a defense attorney eventually involves giving a quality and vigorous defense for someone who deserves the noose (rhetorically speaking; obviously, only a small fraction of criminal cases are capital). Naturally, it also involves someone who flouts ethics in an appalling fashion but who the law cannot touch because they carefully avoided breaking any rules. So I feel some level of pity for them since ultimately, someone has to do the job they do.

[Serafine666]

No manslaughter defense in abortion doc's slaying.

WICHITA, Kan. – The judge in the trial of a man accused of murdering an abortion doctor dealt the defense a major setback Thursday, ruling that the jury cannot consider a lesser charge of manslaughter.

The ruling came hours after Scott Roeder took the stand in his own defense and admitted killing Dr. George Tiller, saying he acted to save the lives of unborn children.

Roeder's attorneys had hoped to win a lesser conviction of voluntary manslaughter, which requires them to show their client had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified. The charge carries a considerably lighter sentence than murder.

Roeder testified that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him.

But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller's church, put a gun to the man's forehead and pull the trigger.

Testifying as the lone defense witness, Roeder calmly explained what he admitted publicly months ago — that he killed Tiller to save unborn children.

"Those children were in immediate danger if someone did not stop George Tiller," Roeder said as the jury watched attentively but without a hint of surprise.

"They were going to continue to die," he said. "The babies were going to continue to die."

Roeder has pleaded not guilty to murder in the attack at the Wichita church where Tiller was an usher. Witnesses have described how Roeder walked into the building's foyer on May 31 shortly after the service started, approached Tiller and fired a single shot before fleeing.

After Roeder's testimony, District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that the jury would not be permitted to consider the manslaughter charge because abortion, including late-term abortion, is legal in Kansas and because Tiller did not pose an imminent threat.

"There is no immediate danger in the back of a church," the judge said. He also ruled out a second-degree murder conviction, which does not involve premeditation, because it was clear Roeder planned the killing.

"It would be hard for a reasonable fact-finder to find anything other than the defendant formulating his belief and then planning on multiple occasions ... to carry out his intention to (kill) Dr. Tiller."

In a November interview with The Associated Press, Roeder publicly confessed to shooting Tiller, who was one of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions.

Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., said he considered other ways of killing Tiller, including driving his car into Tiller's or shooting him with a shotgun. But he said he was concerned those approaches could hurt others.

"I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children," Roeder said. "I shot him."

He testified that he wrapped the .22-caliber handgun in a piece of cloth and buried it in a rural area. The weapon has not been recovered.

Prosecutors were careful during the first few days of testimony to avoid the subject of abortion and to focus on the specifics of the shooting. The judge said he did not want the trial to become a debate on abortion, but he said he would give Roeder a great deal of "latitude" when discussing his beliefs because they were integral to his defense.

Throughout his questioning, Roeder appeared calm and collected, waiting quietly each time prosecutors objected to something he said about medical procedures or late-term abortions, which the judge forbade him from testifying about.

When asked, for example, to detail the types of abortion procedures he was familiar with, Roeder answered "four or five" and then listed them. In one instance, he described a procedure as the fetus being "torn limb from limb" — a characterization that prompted a quick objection from prosecutor Nola Foulston.

During a lengthy cross examination, Foulston tried to keep Roeder's responses to "yes" or "no." At one point, Roeder acknowledged that he had been thinking about killing abortion providers since the 1990s, and had considered using a sword to chop off Tiller's hands or killing him at his home.

Roeder testified though that he thought chopping off Tiller's hands was not a good solution because Tiller would still be able to train people. He said Tiller's home was not a good location because it was in a gated community and difficult to access.

Roeder also said he had gone to Reformation Lutheran Church on three other occasions to kill Tiller, once the evening before and once the week before Tiller was shot, and once in 2008, but Tiller was not at the church on those occasions.

Earlier Thursday, the judge barred former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline from testifying after listening to a preview of Kline's testimony without the jury present.

Kline investigated Tiller's clinic, Women's Health Care Services, in 2006 because he suspected Tiller was violating state laws pertaining to late-term abortion. The case was later dropped because of jurisdictional issues.

Wilbert said much of Kline's testimony would have amounted to "exactly what this court seeks to avoid."

"I said I would not allow this courtroom to turn into a forum or a referendum on abortion," Wilbert said.

The defense had hoped to show Roeder was frustrated by Kline's failure to prosecute Tiller and was influenced in part by Kline's belief that Tiller was breaking the law.

I know the thread has been abandoned for a week or so but I thought this was worth posting. Good for the judge, rejecting this particular defense strategy!

[UCBooties]

I just saw news crawl stating that he was convicted of First Degree Murder after jury deliberations of half an hour. No link yet.

[Big Phil]

Here you go:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... trial.html

Man convicted of murdering Kan. abortion provider

Jurors swiftly convicted an abortion opponent of murder Friday for shooting to death one of the only doctors to offer late-term abortions in the U.S., a killing the gunman claimed was justified to save the lives of unborn children.

By MARIA SUDEKUM FISHER

Associated Press Writer

Scott Roeder, accused of murdering prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, testifies on Thursday in his trial in Wichita, Kansas. The jury Friday found Roeder guilty.
Jurors swiftly convicted an abortion opponent of murder Friday for shooting to death one of the only doctors to offer late-term abortions in the U.S., a killing the gunman claimed was justified to save the lives of unborn children.
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder for putting a gun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and pulling the trigger.
Defense attorney Mark Rudy described his case as helpless and hopeless.
"I've never seen anyone lay himself out as much as Mr. Roeder did," Rudy said after the verdict, referring to his client's confessions.
Roeder faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years when he is sentenced March 9. Prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would pursue a so-called "Hard 50" sentence, which would require Roeder to serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.
Tiller's widow, Jeanne, and the rest of the family quickly exited the courtroom after the verdict. In a statement, Jeanne Tiller said "once again, a Sedgwick County jury has reached a just verdict."
The family said it wanted Tiller to be "remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather."
Roeder had confessed publicly before the trial and admitted again on the witness stand that he shot Tiller in the foyer of the Wichita church where the doctor was serving as an usher. He testified he felt the lives of unborn children were in "immediate danger" because of Tiller.
During closing arguments earlier Friday, Rudy urged the jury to reject the murder charge, saying, "no one should be convicted based on his convictions."
Rudy mentioned leaders who stood up for their beliefs, including Martin Luther King Jr. They were "celebrated individuals (who) stood up and made the world a better place."
"They leave their marks based on their words and deeds," Rudy said.
But prosecutor Kim Parker said Roeder is "simply guilty of the crime he has been charged with."
Prosecutor Ann Swegle told jurors to use their "common sense" when deliberating and find Roeder guilty based not only on the state's case but also on Roeder's own testimony in which he described how he killed Tiller in a "planned assassination."
"There could be no other verdict in this case," she said.
Roeder also was convicted of aggravated assault for pointing a gun at two ushers at Tiller's church after the shooting. Wearing a dark suit with a red tie, he sat straightforward and expressionless as the verdict was read, moving his head toward the judge and to the jury as each juror confirmed his or her decision.
Roeder's attorneys were hoping to get a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.
Tiller's Wichita clinic was the focus of many protests and had been under investigation by a former state district attorney who accused the doctor of skirting Kansas' abortion laws.
Roeder was the sole defense witness after the judge barred testimony from two state prosecutors whom the defense subpoenaed in a bid to show Roeder believed Tiller was performing unlawful abortions and was frustrated charges against the doctor had been dismissed in one case. Jurors in the other case acquitted the doctor.
Roeder testified Thursday that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him. Roeder said he went to Reformation Lutheran Church on three other occasions to kill Tiller: once the evening before and once the week before Tiller was shot, and once in 2008, but Tiller was not at the church on those occasions.
But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller's church, put a gun to the doctor's forehead and pull the trigger.
"Those children were in immediate danger if someone did not stop George Tiller," Roeder told jurors.
But after hearing Roeder testify, District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that his lawyers failed to show that Tiller posed an imminent threat and the jury could not consider a manslaughter verdict.
Prosecutors were careful during the first few days of testimony to avoid the subject of abortion and to focus on the specifics of the shooting. Wilbert said he did not want the trial to become a debate on abortion, but he did allow Roeder to discuss his views on the subject because his attorneys said they were integral to their case.

---

Associated Press Writer Roxana Hegeman contributed to this report.

Took 37 minutes to convict - of course, since the douche admitted his culpability in court, there really was no other possible verdict.

[Thanas]

Any words on the sentencing yet?

[Big Phil]

From the article:

Roeder faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years when he is sentenced March 9. Prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would pursue a so-called "Hard 50" sentence, which would require Roeder to serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.

[Tribun]

From the article:

Roeder faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years when he is sentenced March 9. Prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would pursue a so-called "Hard 50" sentence, which would require Roeder to serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.

Considering that the murderer is already 51 years old, even 25 years most likely means literally lifelong. Even if he manages to reach that age, he'd be 76 and (hopefully) senile.

[Patrick Degan]

And then there's this:

WICHITA, Kan. - Those living on the virulent edge of the anti-abortion movement pinned their hopes on Scott Roeder.

Testifying in his own defense, a remorseless and resolute Roeder insisted he had committed a justified act for the defense of unborn children by killing Dr. George Tiller, one of the country's few physicians to offer late-term abortions. It was a bold legal strategy that, if successful, had the potential to radically alter the debate over abortion by reducing the price for committing such an act of violence.

When it failed, those who share Roeder's passionate, militant belief against abortion were outraged: One said they are getting tired of being treated as a "piece of dirt" unable to express the reasons for such acts in court. So while relieved at the outcome, abortion-rights advocates worry a verdict that should be a deterrent will instead further embolden those prone to violence.

The antiabortion lunatic fringe are already prone to violence. What would have emboldened them would have been if Roeder had actually been acquitted on his absurd justifiable homicide defence.

As for Roeder, may he rot in hell.

[Edi]

One said they are getting tired of being treated as a "piece of dirt" unable to express the reasons for such acts in court. So while relieved at the outcome, abortion-rights advocates worry a verdict that should be a deterrent will instead further embolden those prone to violence.

This motherfucker is too stupid to understand that they are perfectly able to express those reasons in court. What they are not able to do is use it to get acquitted, which is what the murderous asshole really means.