Roeder (Dr. Tiller murderer) can argue manslaughter and effects on the legal system

[Oakminster]

@otternell

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.

The guy is standing trial for Murder 1. All the Judge has done at this point is declined to rule, before it is necessary and proper for him to rule, on whether the jury will also be instructed about Voluntary Manslaughter as a lesser included offense. I strongly suspect the guy is going to be convicted of Murder 1, and the jury probably won’t take very long to reach that verdict, assuming the prosecution has the evidence the press has reported they have.

[otternell]

Maybe I got my panties in a twist over nothing then! I sure hope so.

[Oakminster]

@otternell

Maybe I got my panties in a twist over nothing then! I sure hope so.

In fairness, the press coverage of this trial, from what I’ve seen, has been less than stellar. There’s been a good deal of confusion about what actually happened, think the Judge even mentioned getting his email flooded with protests over something else he didn’t actually do. The article you linked may turn out to be inaccurate as well. I’m just going by what is reported there.

[kingbighair]

For the record the Kansas voluntary manslaughter jury instruction is:

Defendant claims (his)(her) use of force was permitted as the defense of another person.

Defendant is permitted to use deadly force against another person only when and to the extent that it appears to (him)(her) and (he)(she) reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to (himself)(herself)(someone else) from the other person’s imminent use of unlawful force. Reasonable belief requires both a belief by defendant and the existence of facts that would persuade a reasonable person to that belief.

When use of force is permitted as (self-defense) (defense of someone else), there is no requirement to retreat.

Notes on this:

The defense of self-defense requires both a subjective and a reasonable belief that use of force was necessary. In contrast, voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing upon an unreasonable belief that self-defense is necessary. K.S.A. 21-3403(b); State v. Holmes, 278 Kan. 603, 102 P.3d 406 (2004). The voluntary manslaughter analysis is identical to the first, subjective prong required to justify a self-defense instruction. Even though the court gives an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, it may refuse a self-defense instruction if the evidence does not support a finding of the second, objective prong, that a reasonable person would have perceived the need for the use of force in self-defense. State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 106–113, 145 P.3d 18 (2006). Gonzalez cited with approval Tyler v. Nelson, 163 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999), which concluded that fulfilling the objective prong requires more than defendant’s stated belief and requires evaluation of the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Because premeditation requires reason and imperfect self-defense requires the absence of reason, it is not error to instruct the jury to consider first-degree premeditated murder before considering imperfect self-defense. State v. Lawrence, 281 Kan. 1081, 135 P.3d 1211 (2006).

I do not practice in Kansas, so I cannot predict the outcome. However, I find it unlikely a judge will think an objective person would think it necessary to use deadly force in a church to stop a doctor from performing an abortion. Dumber things have happened though.

[Oakminster]

@kingbighair

For the record the Kansas voluntary manslaughter jury instruction is:

Notes on this:

I do not practice in Kansas, so I cannot predict the outcome. However, I find it unlikely a judge will think an objective person would think it necessary to use deadly force in a church to stop a doctor from performing an abortion. Dumber things have happened though.

That doesn’t look like a voluntary manslaughter instruction at all. Looks like a pure self defense instruction.

[Whack-a-Mole]

From kingbighair’s cite (bolding mine):

“Defendant is permitted to use deadly force against another person only when and to the extent that it appears to (him)(her) and (he)(she) reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to (himself)(herself)(someone else) from the other person’s imminent use of unlawful force.”

Seems a done deal that Roeder cannot claim this defense because Dr. Tiller was not acting illegally. Period.

Again IANAL.

[kingbighair]

@Oakminster

That doesn’t look like a voluntary manslaughter instruction at all. Looks like a pure self defense instruction.

Sorry. I did it a bit too quickly.

In certain cases defendant may claim the use of force was justified both as self-defense and as the defense of another person. The first paragraph of this instruction may be modified by inserting “and” between “self-defense” and “the defense of another person.” However, the second paragraph must be modified by inserting the word “or” between “(himself)(herself)” and “(another)” to make it clear that the jury may find justification as self-defense alone or as the defense of another person alone and need not find both justifications. State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 115, 21 P.3d 516 (2001).

[kingbighair]

My apologies. I pasted without thinking and I missed the edit window. This is quite embarrassing.

56.05 Voluntary Manslaughter

A The defendant is charged with the crime of voluntary manslaughter. The defendant pleads not guilty.
To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved:
1 That the defendant intentionally killed ;
2 That it was done (upon a sudden quarrel) (in the heat of passion) (upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force in defense of [a person] [a dwelling] [property]); and
3 That this act occurred on or about the day of , , in County, Kansas.

OR
B In determining whether the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree, you should also consider the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing done (upon a sudden quarrel) (in the heat of passion) (upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force in defense of [a person] [a dwelling] [property]).
If you decide the defendant intentionally killed , but that it was done (upon a sudden quarrel) (in the heat of passion) (upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force in defense of [a person] [a dwelling] [property]), the defendant may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter only.

The unreasonable but honest belief required under K.S.A. 21-3403(b) must be based on the reality of the circumstances surrounding the killing and not on a psychotic delusion. State v. Ordway, 261 Kan. 776, 934 P.2d 94 (1997).