I agree we would typically expect lesser included charges to be on the table for jury consideration.
OTOH, just like Texas’s “standard murder, a first degree felony” is not the same thing as “first degree murder” in most of the rest of the USA, there may also be laws or standard practices in Texas which treat included offenses differently than we all expect from experiences in our own states.
My assumption is it is in fact bias. But that bias may be built into a system that tries to ensure maximum punishments by prohibiting the jury from “splitting the baby” by convicting only a lesser offense whose penalties comport better with the juries’ ideas of an appropriate sentence.
Texas: Keeping the Dark Ages alive since … well … the Dark Ages. Or at least the 1600s.
It’s a sentence appropriate for first-degree murder. Which gets us back to the jury (possibly) not being allowed to consider manslaughter, the charge that seems to more accurately reflect what happened here.
If that is true and the jury really wanted manslaughter but didn’t have the option then they would have given a sentence of 5 years–not the 35 years they decided upon.
I read one analysis of the defense that said their choice not to put him on the stand likely weakened a self-defense claim but improved the chance of a manslaughter finding.–shrug–
I wasn’t in the courtroom, I have no idea how the jury made the decision they made, I haven’t seen video of the incident (which was apparently available for them to watch), but what info I do know suggests that this sentence looks terribly draconian to me.
For first-degree murder as an adult? Isn’t that almost always life imprisonment or death in Texas? I don’t know what his parole date is, but it’s not heavy by Texas standards.
When Anthony is finally released, he’s going to have a chance to build a life with the years he has left. Metcalf will still be dead. Thirty-five years is a bit higher than I expected, but it doesn’t seem excessive to me.
Yes, I think a white kid would have been tried as an adult. Would the sentence have been 35 years? I don’t know. Given Austin’s ineffective defense, I’m going to go with maybe.
If I was trying to make it equivalent I’d be complaining Anthony didn’t get the death penalty.
I don’t believe you can have justice when the punishment is excessive nor when it’s too lenient. It’s sometimes difficult to figure out where than line is though. What do you think would have been an appropriate sentence for Athony?
Regarding being tried as an adult, that’s baked into the laws of Texas. It wasn’t because of his skin color. Anyone 17 and older is considered an adult in court in Texas. The jury could have taken his age into consideration when deciding the sentence. It doesn’t seem like they did.
Ah, thank you. I guess I shouldn’t automatically attribute to racism that which can be attributed to Texas vengeance. I still think a white kid would get a shorter sentence.
@Odesio, I’d think something more like 15 years would have been appropriate. But I didn’t sit on the trial, so take it for what it’s worth.
I figured he’d get 20 plus some change. I think 15 is a bit low, but it isn’t a sentence that would leave me outraged. I think 35 is a bit high, but it isn’t high enough to leave me outraged.