You are on my jury - do you convict?

In My Humble Opinion
61

This is actually incorrect. I was recently on a jury for a murder case and was told everything about their finances, mental health and how often the cops were called over domestic violence before the killing happened.

Both attorneys used everything they had to prove their sides of the case, including putting one of the young children on the stand.

It was ugly and horrible and I hope I never have to do such a thing again. For those who wonder about the jury selection…while people who stood up and said they had no tolerance for spousal abuse, or for crimes commuted while under the influence weren’t dismissed at the selection process…but they also weren’t selected.

My opinion? Manslaughter. The wife had many chances to get out of her situation, but didn’t take them. Even when the husband was on the floor, she could have just run away. Hopefully, she will finally be forced to get mental help, because otherwise she will just put herself in another abusive relationship again.

62

Murder (probably second degree) or possibly manslaughter, for many of the reasons sketched out by people above. By coming back downstairs, seems to me she forfeited the “imminent danger” card. And I’m having trouble getting past the second shot.

I also find the notion that “she won’t do it again” to be tricky (is the penal system only there to protect innocent people from the possibility of becoming crime victims?), and the argument that “he wasn’t a good guy” bothers me. I’m not sure I’m willing to start doling out penalties based on what the neighbors thought of the deceased, or doling out penalties based on the supposed worth of someone’s life. Is it worse to kill a business executive than a homeless person? Should there be greater penalties for the one over the other?

It’s a terrible situation, and I appreciate that she may have felt she didn’t have any other options. And I appreciate that she probably felt gut-wrenching fear. But I can’t give her a pass for killing him.

63

This makes it premeditated.

64

Ditto. She would have gotten either second degree or voluntary manslaughter just for shooting him on sight, without any attempt to warn him off. If she openly admits she’d made up her mind to kill him, she’s screwed.

65

I’d be unlikely to make it onto such a jury in the first place, since my dad beat my mom. I would never vote “guilty” to any one of the listed offenses. I would bring up the option to nullify, and try to convince my fellow jurors to do the same. Likely result is a hung jury.

66

I don’t think it is a question of nullification.

I couldn’t in all conscience vote to convict that woman of any charge and I would hope that counsel could convince my fellow jurors of that. If not then they will be sitting around as an exercise in futility hoping to change my vote.

Just reading the bare bones above is enough for me.

67

He is a cop who outweighs her by some 140 pounds. He just tried to murder her and is still on HER premises. His very presence constitutes her being in danger. She is not obligated to retreat or give warning nor to give him another chance to spring up the stairs and be on her in less than three seconds. As I said before, he doesn’t need to be armed or pointing a weapon at her or be in the process of strangling her again. He has already demonstrated a willingness to end her life ,and her life and her children’s lives are at risk every second he is in that house. As long as he is still under that roof…it is self-defense.

That’s my almost certainly not legally correct opinion anyway. Though I do agree with the spirit. I think the idea that a survivor of attempted murder must carry the onus of retreat over the man who attempted the murder is disgusting.

68

I still dont understand why anyone is assuming the attempt had ended, or that he is heading for the front door instead of up the stairs. I think this is the primary thing the OP must find a way to address; why the lady thought her husband was still after her. Was he yelling things at her? Saying that he was going to end her, or whatever?

69

She retreated to a safe place and secured means to defend herself. Not a problem at all in my book.

She then took the additional steps to put herself on the offensive by going down the stairs toward a man who is fuming, but not making any current, physical threat to her. That’s when things get hairy.

With a serious nod to the history, I would vote for manslaughter had she stopped at that first intentional shot. The second bullet she put in him, however, probably bumps me up to Murder 2 on the first vote, with the ability to be convinced to go tougher by a good argument.

70

For me, the last shot is what turns it into clear-cut first-degree murder. If the shootings were the other way around, would you disagree?

71

Everything I’ve shared has been pretty heavily reported in the local papers. Everything else is in the police reports. This was really more of a thought experiment. Nothing not in the public record.

I guess I should have said Hypothetical Client.

What I can see is that this really is kind of an all or nothing proposition. This case will be won or lost in jury selection an jury instructions.

72

Thanks for the information guys. This is the kind of stuff I need so I can hone in on what’s important. When you work a case, you get your blinders on to what you think is important. It can be hard to see things from an outside perspective.

73

I voted for voluntary manslaughter for reasons detailed above by Amberlei. This lady had made numerous attempts to get help in the past, all to no avail. That had to add to her level of fear and feelings of helplessness.

74

If you have worked with these women then you know there is a lot more than physical abuse going on. There’s mental and psychological abuse going on as well.
For people on the outside looking in it seems so easy. The man hits you, you pack up your kids and leave, That simple. Except sometimes the women have no place to go, or no way to support themselves, or have religious beliefs (you took him for better or worse, you got worse so suck it up) or any other number of reason/excuses to stay with him.
The men don’t let go that easily either, they beg, they threatened, they stalk, they cry, they promise. They threaten to take the kids.
He wears her down and wears her out until she can’t think rationally. He’ll keep her awake for days until she is ready to collapse. He’s sweet and considerate one minute and violent the next. He makes her question her sanity, maybe she is the crazy one, maybe it is her fault, maybe she really does deserve it. Sometimes it’s blatant and other times it’s so subtle that you really have to be watching to catch it.
The time these women are in the most danger is when they decide to leave.

Ultimately though, he (or she in some cases) is the abuser. He makes the choice and it is a choice to raise his hands to her. He can blame it on alcohol, or he can blame it on losing control, but he makes the choice to be violent. Funny how these men never are so drunk or so out of control that they beat up their car or their flat screen TV, or even one of their male friends who are capable of defending themselves.
It’s criminal behavior and it’s real easy to sit back and say wtf is wrong with her, but he’s the criminal not her.

Sometimes criminals (of all kinds) get killed while committing crimes. Too bad for them.

75

Technically, he wasn’t a criminal, as he was never convicted. Not even arrested. The trouble here is that a whole bunch of explanations are possible: the guy was obviously bad news, but maybe not that bad while the woman was completely psycho and killed him in cold blood. Or the guy was a deranged lunatic who terrorized the wife and had is corrupt cronies cover up his wrongdoing and he really was still going after her after that first shot. Very hard for us to know.

But he’s dead and she pulled the trigger (twice), and it doesn’t seem like that was her only choice. Frankly, I don’t care if she had mental health issues, people who kill should be locked up one way or the other.

76

This question is the reason I haven’t discussed this case, and I feel vaguely dirty for having answered the poll before I found out it was a real case. I hope you have at least adequately anonymized details.

77

Since this is “hypothetical” what I would do as a criminal defense attorney is to hit the BWS very, very hard. Argue that you can’t piecemeal each individual act and analyze it with hindsight. Argue that this woman, and any reasonable person in her shoes, would recognize this man as an ongoing and continuous threat. One must look at the entire encounter and not focus on each and every individual point and counter point.

Even though shot and lying on the floor “laughing” she, and any reasonable person in her shoes, would believe that he is invincible and will rise up and kill her. Not guilty. Self defense.*
*As I said above, I believe that this defense is horseshit, but it has worked in many, many cases.

78

So? Relatively minor things like ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia, narcolepsy, insomnia, pot smoking, the inability to orgasm, addiction to caffeine, and bulimia are in the DSM-IV, and you’d be hard pressed to call those people “mentally ill” despite all fitting into that 80%.

79

I say 1st degree because she took no steps to try to exit the situation, to save her life without ending his. No attempt to just leave. I don’t buy past calls to 911, women’s support groups, etc., without any evidence that she left the premises, stayed with a friend, filed for divorce, etc.

I could probably be talked by other jury members into voluntary manslaughter.

With appropriate testimony, I could definitely entertain mental health exceptions. There isn’t enough here to assess that; it sounds like it’s mostly conjecture.

I feel for the accused. I recognize that there are mental issues regarding battered women, and she might be exonerable on that basis. But I feel that it would be very bad public policy to send the message that the way to deal with a threat is to kill it. No, the way to deal with a threat is to remove yourself from it, and then seek legal help.

Of course, the correct approach to a case is to judge the case based on its merits and the law. But the law is very much concerned with public policy, and while it might seem harsh in certain cases, it serves a purpose that shouldn’t be ignored.

I’m glad I’m not a juror. I’d hate to have to make such a decision. Frankly, I’d rather fight on the woman’s side than on the prosecution. Were I on her side, I’d have no reservations about doing my damnedest to get her found not guilty. But as an impartial observer with the facts as stated, I think I’d find her guilty.

After all, the man clearly had mental health issues, but he got a death sentence rather than treatment.

As a prosecutor, I’d definitely be interested in fairly liberal plea bargaining. But then, I’d be a pretty terrible prosecutor! There’s a big difference between what the law demands and what’s the best outcome. As a juror I’d be caught in the conflict between the two.

80

If I’m going to err, I’m going to err on the side of the individual 100 times out of 100. So I would go with Not Guilty. I know a lot of posters said they would want to go not guilty but feel they have some obligation to the state to convict for something. I feel no such obligation.