How would vote, as a juror, in this domestic violence case?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Yes, it’s another Skaldthetical with ridiculously long OP and optional poll. Persons who don’t like these should go find another thread. There are two sorts of information in this hypothetical: the facts not in dispute, and the accounts of the defendant, Lucy, and Renee, the victim.

Here are the facts not in dispute.

Lucy & Renee live in Memphis. They consider themselves married, though the state disagrees. Lucy is a hair under 40 years old and a hair over six feet tall; she’s very fit, very strong, and a black belt in karate, which she instructs professionally. Renee’s ten years younger, about a foot shorter, and quite slight of build; she’s a bank manager. Lucy identifies as strictly lesbian; Renee calls herself bisexual.

Some time ago, Lucy was in the kitchen and about to go for her morning run when Renee asked to have a conversation. Lucy agreed and suggested they sit at the table. Renee replied that the living room might be more comfortable; she chose a chair outside of Lucy’s reach. No one else was in the house. After a little dithering, Renee told Lucy that she needed her forgiveness, though she didn’t didn’t expect to receive it; she was pregnant. Lucy asked who the father was, if Renee was in love with him, if she intended to keep the baby, and if she wanted to divorce. Renee replied that she wasn’t in love with the man she cheated with; that she wanted to keep the baby if Lucy agreed to that; and that under no circumstances did she want to break up, though she understood if Lucy wanted to. Lucy then observed that Renee had not named the father. Renee replied that that was on purpose; she was afraid of what Lucy would do to him if she knew who he was.

Lucy rose and headed upstairs. Saying Renee was putting this man ahead of their marriage, she declared that she didn’t know whether she could stay with her or not; she added that she had to get out of the house before she lost her temper. Renee followed begged her not to, saying she feared that, if Lucy left, she would never return, so it was better if she, Renee, left. Lucy ignored Renee’s entreaties while packing an overnight bag. Back at the top of staircase, Renee tried to physically restrain her; Lucy lashed out and knocked her down the stairs. Renee was gravely injured. Lucy called 911; when the paramedics arrived she was weeping uncontrollably, and she went with her to the hospital. There the police confronted her, and after hearing the story arrested her. Renee spent several days in the hospital. She did not miscarry, however, and the two have since reconciled and are raising the baby. The prosecutor’s office has charged Lucy with attempted murder.

Alrighty. Those are the facts no one disputes. Now here are three relevant views presented at trial.

Renee insists that the fall was an accident, and that she is mostly to blame for it. Just as she should never have cheated, Renee says, she should never have tried to restrain Lucy when she was in such a rage. The reason she wouldn’t tell Lucy who the father was was that it was her, Renee’s, therapist. For some months before the incident Renee had been depressed and in counseling; her therapist seduced her. Lucy would consider this a rape, Renee says, and *given her temper would likely have assaulted him physically. * She insists that Lucy has never struck her before.

Lucy also says that the fall was an accident, though she blames herself; if the charges were less than attempted murder she would likely have pleaded guilty. As it is, Renee had to persuade her not to plead guilty early on, when she was most full of remorse. Lucy says that she always loved Renee and has grown to love the child.

Helen, the prosecutor assigned to the case, thinks both Lucy and Renee are full of shit. Lucy is so much larger and stronger than Renee that it’s hard to imagine that the former couldn’t have moved the latter from her path without difficulty; the only way the incident makes sense, Helen claims, is if Lucy grabbed Renee and threw her down the stairs. Like many domestic violence victims, Helen argues, Renee is protecting her abuser; she hints but does not outright state that this incident is only the latest in pattern of abuse. For the sake of Renee and her child, Lucy needs to go to prison.

Renee’s therapist refuses to testify unless given immunity for any wrongdoing. For whatever reason Helen refused to give that, and thus he’s pleaded the Fifth.

Wow, that was long. What the hell was I thinking?

Okay, there’s the situation. Should Lucy be convicted of attempted murder? If yes, why? If not, do you think another charge would have been more appropriate? If you think she should be acquited and that no other charge would have been more appropriate, why is that?

2

That would never meet the standard for guilt for attempted murder. I doubt I’d convict for aggravated assault since Renee testifies that she was attempting to restrain Lucy. If I were the prosecutor I’d seek a plea-bargain down to something like disorderly conduct.

She did let her temper lead her to lash out more than she needed to to simply get free of Renee.

3

Yeah, really not seeing any way attempted murder would stick, and highly doubt any competent prosecutor would charge it.

The therapist has no grounds to claim the Fifth Amendment. He’s not charged with a crime, nor is he likely to be. Boinking a patient is likely an ethical violation, but I doubt it is a crime.

Also doubt he can assert a doctor-patient privilege, as that belongs to the patient, and she can waive it.

Not sure he has anything relevant to testify about anyway. He was not present during the incident.

If [del]Xena[/del] Lucy is charged with anything, she might try to establish self defense.

[del]Gabriel[/del] Renee doesn’t want to press charges, and is not likely to be a cooperative witness, so I doubt a prosecutor is going to push it.

4

Not your best, Skald.

All this is irrelevant. Lucy didn’t know any of this.

Back up, and:

That’s one person restraining another, the other person fighting against it, and the location making the fall worse. That is what we would generally call an accident.

5

Who says the prosecutor’s competent? You caught the other two, but the third’s Helen Gamble from The Practice. :wink:

6

I agree he probably doesn’t, but do you mean he isn’t allowed to? Isn’t the point that we can’t assume he might be covering up some other illegal activity which might come up in questioning? Although I don’t know if anything happens to you if it turns out later you were lying.

In terms of the original question:

  • Lucy definitely hit Renee.
  • There’s no evidence that she did intend to kill Renee, since the fall as accident seems very likely and plausible and is what everyone involved says. (There’s also no evidence she didn’t, since Renee wouldn’t necessarily know.)
  • That means no attempted murder. But presumably she’s guilty of some sort of assault charge. (I think it’s the judge’s job to tell me which is appropriate, and me to decide if it fits the facts).
  • Lucy clearly has a temper, enough to make a pattern of domestic violence a consideration.
  • The evidence there is not solid though. Renee testifies that she thought she might hit her on that occasion, and that she might physically attack the therapist, and if she was, it seems likely Renee would not admit it (since she doesn’t want to dwell on this incident). However, the evidence that she has before been physically intimidating towards Renee is weak – it relies on language like “chose a chair out of reach”, and we don’t know if that’s Renee’s language (which implies she had reason to think violence was likely) or the prosecutor’s language (who would say that whether or not it was likely if it helped her case).
  • There’s definitely not enough evidence to convinct Lucy of a pattern of domestic violence, or even to be sure if there was or not. Sometimes it really is only one completely abberant incident (maybe Lucy suddenly felt threatened and tried to push Renee off, and the other hints about her temper are spurious), even though one incident is usually a red flag of an ongoing pattern of abuse.
  • However, it should definitely be investigated by someone (possibly as a criminal investigation, although that’s likely to cause a lot of harm if it’s wrong, but more importantly, just to see if there’s probable problems, and if so, to offer Renee or Lucy support). Although as a hypothetical juror, I don’t think that’s within my remit.
7

I would vote to nullify, because I don’t think it’s a net benefit to either society or the participants in question to prosecute domestic abuse cases without a willing accuser.

Plus, haven’t you SEEN Delores Claiborne??

8

You forgot an option.

Skald’s really gone off the deep end, with this one.

No vote.

ETA: Although I was seriously tempted by the last option. And is Helen hot?

9

There’s no evidence of anything but an accident. Renee put her hands on Lucy first. Nothing in your story indicates that Lucy used undue force in freeing herself from Renee. No crime has been committed.

10

Welcome to sixty years ago. I think you’ll find it’s not a very nice place to be for women.

11

A quick google says 15 states view sexual relations by therapists as a potential criminal offense.

http://www.advocateweb.org/home.php?page_id=112

The real risk would probably be losing his license, lawsuits etc, but it sounds at least possible he could be charged. On the other hand they could presumably nail him on DNA alone, so not sure how useful it would be to be that obstreperous.

The story as it stands cant be viewed as attempted murder, but it lacks any number of things you see in a trial, eg how credible the story for the accident was vs the injuries being more consistent with being thrown or hit etc. I guess I would want to know what the ‘history of abuse’ is thats being hinted at, I would expect that would not normally be removed from a trial involving DV, but I dont know how it works in various areas of the US.

I certainly would view a claim of ‘self defense’ or ‘accident’ as not being credible on the face of it, but attempted murder without other information seems like an awfully big stretch to do beyond reasonable doubt.

If the person turned up as a client I wouldnt be buying it as it stands for a second, but I can ask questions a court cant, and dont have to presume not guilty in the same way a court does.

Otara

12

edit: double post sorry.

Otara

13

The facts *not under dispute *include the fact that [del]Gabr[/del]Renee tried to restrain [del]Xen[/del]Lucy, who then lashed out. There’s no need for any trial - it was all an accident.

14

What could the therapist testify if granted immunity?

15

Man, I don’t get this line of thinking. If someone tried to restrain me from storming out, the main reason why – even in the height of fury – I wouldn’t “lash out” is that it’s assault. It’s a reasonably foreseeable consequence of pushing someone out of your way that they’ll fall down and get hurt. Sure, it’s an accident – the kind of accident that happens when you’re a jackass (or a jenny).

16

“She’s a pretty good lay! I should know, I had her!”, which is irrelevant to the charge in this case? I believe Skald has screwed the pooch on this one.

17

Comes under the much-vaunted-around-here notion of self defence, surely? Renee is the one who first made a physical action.

18

If you’re really upset and someone grabs you then it is perfectly normal to ‘lash out.’

The reasonably forseeable consequence of grabbing someone at the top of a flight of stairs is that they’ll try to stop you grabbing them, which might make you fall down the stairs.