Basically, the man who pulled a gun out in church and shot Dr. Tiller in the face will be allowed to argue from the defense of voluntary manslaughter. That he had the “honest but unreasonable belief” that killing Dr. Tiller would save lives.
And yet the judge who is allowing this does not want it to turn into a trial about abortion.
How could this ruling impact the way we try murders in the future? Could someone then kill the president (not that I am advocating this btw) and then say “but he sent more troops to Afghanistan - who will either kill others or die themselves”?
Doesn’t allowing this automatically create a problem bringing the politics into a legal matter?
(Hmmm - maybe I should just pit the judge that’s allowing it.) :mad:
ETA: Whoops - I believe the title has a mis-spelling and I can’t fix it. Sorry! Note to self - use preview first!
I think you need to read the linked article again, and see what the Judge actually said.
*Wilbert repeated that he had not meant to make a legal ruling while analyzing case law on voluntary manslaughter Friday, when he said he could envision a scenario where Roeder tried to make a case on the less severe charge. A manslaughter conviction would mean a sentence of four to six years for Roeder, compared to life in prison for first-degree murder.
But the judge said he’d received a barrage of e-mails, public comments and had heard misstatements in news reports that he had definitively ruled he would instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter.
Some may have confused his opinions with his ruling that Roeder could not use the so-called “necessity defense.” That is where Roeder would claim he killed Tiller to prevent abortion, which is not allowed by law. *
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are highlighting, but the article does state that the defendant will be allowed to use voluntary manslaughter as a defense. The judge “refused to prevent” him from using this defense.
My point is that he is being allowed to use it as a defense. Not that the judge has decided that’s the outcome - I am not saying that. (or at least that’s not what I am trying to say. If you read it that way, just point me to the phrase I used that’s at fault, so that I can be enlightened.)
Plus the quotes you selected pertained to “involuntary manslaughter”. And “definitively ruled that he would instruct the jury”. I am bitching that he is even allowing this man to use it as a defense.
The issue is whether or not the Judge will grant the Voluntary Manslaughter instruction, and the Judge said he’s not going to decide that until he knows what evidence the Defense has actually presented. If the defense fails to produce sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to reach that conclusion, then he’s probably not going to give the instruction. If they do, he might give it.
And I am saying that even allowing it to be used as a defense and something to think about is a problem. I am aware that he has not decided to use it for sure, I am saying that even opening this door 1/4 of an inch so that he can argue it as a defense is the problem.
Are there any limits on what defense a defendant can use? I mean, what’s the point of a trial if we don’t let the defendant give what he believes is his best case for explaining his actions.
If Roeder manages to actually convince the judge that he should be held to a lesser charge using this argument, then I agree we have a problem, but I doubt that will happen, and I don’t see any harm in letting him at least make his case to the judge.
I don’t know that it is a problem. If a killing with the “honest but unreasonable belief” that it’s necessary to save lives is, under the law, voluntary manslaughter, and Roeder killed Dr. Tiller because of the honest but unreasonable belief that his death was necessary to save lives, then that’s what he should be convicted of.
And I expect the prosecution to argue that he could not have honestly believed the Doc had to be killed at that time and place to save lives. He wasn’t preparing to do an abortion, or in the process of conducting an abortion. He was attending services at his church.
But is that the standard? Does the prevention of death need to be immediate? I would hope so but nothing I’ve seen goes beyond the “honest but unreasonable” portion. I have no doubt that Roeder “honestly” believed that he would save lives. On its face, it seems like a ridiculously low standard for the defense to have to meet. Let’s face it, the guy is obviously a nutcase. Why couldn’t he honestly believe what he was doing would save lives even if he was obviously wrong?
I don’t see how Voluntary Manslaughter is even on the table. Even the Kansas statute requires imminent threat to use the “imperfect self defense” argument. Certainly Tiller was not an imminent threat to anybody while at church.
We recently had a thread around here where a woman killed her insanely abusive husband. However, because she killed him while not under an immediate threat at that moment (i.e. he wasn’t actually beating the shit out of her at that time) she gets to go to jail. Nevermind the many years of horrendous abuse.
Personally I think, given things like that case, the law is royally fucked-up in this regard.
That said I do not think Roeder has a case on this basis. Dr. Tiller was not murdering anyone as a legal matter (regardless of your personal opinion the abortions were legal). Thus Roeder can not, in a legal sense, have been preventing a crime for which he should be found innocent or at least guilty of a lesser crime.
The problem is that this then becomes a trial of abortion and not his crime. It is politicizing a criminal case. He now gets to be a martyr for his cause, which cause (let’s be clear) is violent opposition of a legal procedure.
I really really hate the idea of this guy getting away with what he did due to jury nullification. I didn’t and don’t even want to think about him getting off on all charges due to it. Although, perhaps the judge is thinking that if the jury ends up being a bunch of Roeder-esque loons, and would never convict him of 1st degree, then perhaps he can serve some time due to voluntary manslaughter. Or if he thought they were going to pull some insanity bs out of their asses. I had not previously considered this perspective.
My problem is that he willfully, intentionally took a gun to a church, walked up to the guy and planted a bullet in his brain. Those are the facts of the matter, and it was witnessed. Unless the judge is thinking along the lines of my first paragraph, then this is complete bullshit and the loon should be tried for 1st degree. People who willfully shoot other people because they have differing political opinions should not get a lesser charge than 1st degree murder.
But he did kill the Doctor for political reasons, so its not really the judges fault that the case is being politicized, its just the nature of the crime.
And Roeder can’t really deny the facts of the case, he shot a dude in front of a Church, presumably there were a lot of witnesses. So basically a defense based on his motivations is all he has available to him.
Jury nullification, while always a possibility, is rather rare and I think unlikely in this case. I would bet a jury sympathetic to Roeder’s views at most would find him guilty of a lesser crime rather than an outright verdict of innocent.
I am also reasonably certain neither the judge nor the attorneys are allowed to suggest nullification as a course of action. IANAL though and doubtless these things can differ state-to-state but from previous discussions around here that is my sense of it.
I should add if the jury did find Roeder innocent (jury nullification) I would not be surprised if the Federal government went after him on some charge or other (ala the Feds going after the officers in the Rodney King case).
Roeder could also face civil liability even if found innocent of the crime (ala O.J. Simpson). Not sure he has much for others to take but, in theory, others can go after him legally even after a verdict of innocent.
Inside the vestibule, I thought. Not that it should influence the jury’s impression of the severity of the crime in a secular state, but even to my atheist mind it definitely seems to make it even more heinous.