Argh! A judge overturned the jury’s decision on the 2nd degree murder conviction of the wife, but he did uphold the lesser charge–the husband has been sentenced today to … oh 4 years in prison. Oh yeah, he’s got to pay the parents and the partner of the victim an amount of money. I think I heard the newscaster say $6K. The wife’s sentencing has been delayed.
Honestly, that whole case made me sick to my stomach! First, the husband and wife tried to make it seem like the victim had provoked the dog to attack her by wearing some provacative scent (WTF?!), then it turns out that they were raising the dogs for a prisoner that was their client… and … well, that they may have been very personally involved with the dogs. Yes, -that- case! Then, the wife’s lawyer during the trial put on a scene that was almost worthy of the worst melodramatic tv show–yes, she was -that- bad (a bad actress wannabe). The jury found them both guilty, the wife of 2nd degree murder. HTF can a judge just throw out the decision of a jury? The victim’s family and partner are now suffering again, feeling that justice has -not- been served, I’m sure. I did hear that the judge said there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict… if someone can explain this in simple terms, I’d be willing to listen. Isn’t it unusual for a judge to overturn a jury’s verdict like that, though?
I’m sorry, this couple knew those dogs were vicious; in fact, I think they were training them to be, and they really seemed to have no control over the dogs. And for them to have to make retribution… it’s still just sickening to me to even think of what the victim’s loved ones are feeling now. ARGH I say!! Justice has been determined by a jury of peers, only to be overturned by a judge.
The defendants are scum. Nevertheless, there was no evidence that they knew–not “should have known” or “might have predicted,” but knew–the dogs would kill another person. Ergo, second degree murder is a crock, and the judge’s decision today was completely correct under the law.
Heh… okay, I’ll buy that they didn’t -know- that the dogs would kill (though I have serious doubts - I do think they -were- training them to have that bent). That is interesting that the BBC title says “cleared” because the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter was upheld. That’s definitely not cleared, in my book, although it is somewhat of a letdown that the will not get much “time.”
I can only guess why the judge allowed it to proceed to trial. Judges have a fair amount of discretion to determine when there’s sufficient evidence for a trial and when there isn’t. My best guess is that the prosecution pointed to the evidence of the dogs’ repeated aggression, their highly suspicious origin in the prison system, their training, and the owners’ ridiculous indifference to anyone other than themselves. Taken together, all that might be enough to demonstrate knowledge sufficient enough to sustain a second degree murder conviction, so the judge let it proceed. But the testimony and other evidence actually presented at trial didn’t live up to that pretrial possibility, so he ordered a new trial.
In other words, the prosecution now gets another crack at showing sufficient evidence of knowledge on the part of the wife that the dogs would kill. There’s still enough evidence that such knowledge is a possibility that can be proven at trial, but not yet enough to sustain a murder conviction. It’s a fine line, really, but one that courts have to deal with pretty often.
I’m not sure how you figure that the prosecution will get a second bite at the apple. If the wife’s conviction was set aside due to insufficiency of the evidence, that has jeopardy implications; she can absolutely claim jeopardy attached at the first trial and prevents a re-trial.
From the link, I don’t get the sense that a new trial was ordered, nor will it be, I suspect. The prosecution can - and, it seems, will - appeal the judge’s ruling; a win for them merely means the conviction is re-instated. A loss means that the lesser convictions stand.
I don’t see a new trial in the cards at all, unless I’m missing something.
OK, but there are several disturbing aspects to this decision:[ol][]The obliviousness defence. I know that the “Twinky Defence” was outlawed after Dan White used it. The obliviousness defence seems similarly objectionable.[]Suppose I plant a bomb in a schoolyard and it kills a child. Am I safe from 2nd degree murder, because I didn’t know that the bomb would kill anyone?Since the evidence needed to be interpreted to see whether the defendants knew that the dogs would kill someone, why didn’t the judge provide an explanation of the law and let the jury make the judgment?[/ol]
You’re may well be right there, Rick. But it was Ms. Knoller herself who made a motion for a new trial. It seems most similar to me to a retrial following a successful appeal, which is acceptable and happens all the time. The judge didn’t acquit Knoller (though maybe he should have?), so the exception for evidentiary insufficiency may not apply. Guess we’d have to know more about the specifics of the defendant’s motion and the court’s order to tell for certain whether double jeopardy would apply.
No such defenses have ever existed. The “twinkie defense” was nothing more than an ordinary diminshed-capacity defense, which has long been recognized in some jurisdictions to reduce the severity of a charge. And obliviousness is not a defense at all; rather, the state has to prove that the defendant acted with a particular state of mind. If you’re genuinely too stupid to realize that what you’re doing may end badly, you are not guilty of the crime. Period.
Say hello to Sing Sing. Acting “knowingly,” as required for second-degree murder, is established if the defendant was “practically certain” that the conduct would cause the prohibited resuly.
I was amazed that the DA chose to grandstand by seeking a Second Degree Murder charge in the first place. You see it all the time on TV drama (don’t want to plead? Let’s see how you like my Inflated Charges), but I didn’t think they were that vain in real life. The facts seemed clear; depraved indifference yes, intent to harm no.
The right move by the DA would have been to go with the easy conviction for involuntary manslaughter, then go full steam during sentencing to stack the sentences on the lesser charges consecutively to punish for the Knoller’s startling negligence.
The first link didn’t mention it was her motion for a new trial. I have since found this CNN story, which does say that
But I’m still baffled.
Ordinarily, you move for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case, if the prosecution has not, as a matter of law, made their burden. This motion also preserves the record for an appeal on insufficiency of the evidence.
Subsequent to the verdict, motions for a new trial based on error should be made to the trial judge. But if you contend that, as a matter of law, the prosecution failed to present evidence that would have permitted a reasonable jury to find guilt, the proper motion is NOT for a new trial, but to set aside the verdict.
If she did ask for a new trial, she has most likely waived any double jeopardy claims she might present. But why she’d ask for a new trial on grounds of evidentiary insufficiency is beyond me. If the judge found error, sure… pony up a new trial. But if the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, then jeopardy should attach.
UNLESS… the new trial goes solely to the lesser count. But I don’t get that sense from the article.
Be nice, as you say, to actually read the court’s order.
So they were training the dogs to kill people, and they were taking the dogs out in public (because they needed to be walked), and the dogs were obviously too powerful for them to restrain, but they did not know the dogs could kill a person?
This is ridiculous. Of course they knew the dogs could kill someone. If they say they didn’t, that is clearly wilful blindness because the evidence was staring them in the face.
You are misrepresenting the case minty. The defendants had to have known the dangers the dogs posed, because they themselves had created the danger. And yet they took them out in public, with no way to restrain them (and here is the main point)… because as I recall the dogs had a medical condition that meant they had to take walks! It seems clear that they took them out for walks, fully aware of the danger, because they HAD to take them out for walks, if they wanted to get paid for the dogs. In other words, money was more important than the potential death of an innocent bystander. I don’t see how you can say there was no evidence for second degree murder.
My favourite bit about the BBC article is how it makes a point of the fact that the victim’s partner is breaking new ground by being the first gay person to sue for willful death of a partner.
(Emphasis added.) It is not legally sufficient that they knew the dogs “could” kill somebody. The prosecution must show that they knew the dogs would kill somebody.
Never, ever, ever claim I am “misrepresenting” something unless you are prepared to demonstrate it. You don’t even come close to that, bucko. Observe:
And here is where you utterly fail to demonstrate that I am falsely representing one goddamned thing in this case, because I don’t disagree with any one of the facts you’ve just described. The problem here is that you do not understand the legal difference between acting “knowingly” (second degree murder) and acting “recklessly” (manslaughter). Even if every single fact you asserted is true, none of it shows that Ms. Knoller “knew” the dogs were “substantially certain” to kill somebody when she took them for a walk that day.
wring, the motion for a new trial has the new appellate counsel’s name on it at the top, so he’d have to argue that his own representation was ineffective. Fat chance of seeing that!
If second degree murder is acting KNOWINGLY
and manslaughter is acting RECKLESSLY,
where is the difference between manslaughter and INvoluntary manslaughter? Also, isn’t there a difference between acting KNOWINGLY and acting INTENTIONALLY?
Using the analogy: car=dog :
1- I get into a car, aim it at a pedestrian w/ intent to kill : murder? What is the difference between knowingly vs. intentionally here? How does it translate in legal terms?
2- I get into a car, speed 60 mph through a residential street and kill a pedestrian: reckless, probably {vehicular} manslaughter.
3-I’m not sure about a car analogy here: If I get into a car, DUI,get into an accident and my passenger dies from his injury: involuntary {vehicular?} manslaughter.
Surely they must have KNOWN the dogs would kill, but was that the INTENTION?
I did hear that the judge said there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict… if someone can explain this in simple terms, I’d be willing to listen. Isn’t it unusual for a judge to overturn a jury’s verdict like that, though?