Open season....

[Garnet]

(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto.

Holy shit. Does the way that statute is worded mean that there is some merit to offering it as a jury instruction?

[D. Scarlatti]

That part does but his burden is convincing the judge that abortion* constitutes "unlawful force."

* In particular the abortions that Tiller was performing, the "violence" of which the defendant will have to emphasize.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

By the way, if you ever really want to get to the heart of any State's laws, just pick up a copy of the jury instructions.

Well, that sounds easy. I will just grab a copy and brush up on my lawyering skills on my long commute home from work.

[D. Scarlatti]

I didn't say it would do anything for your lawyering skills.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

* Unlawful force most likely does not include abortion. The defendant's belief that abortion is unlawful force is probably not going to cut it (because the "law" in "unlawful" would have to be something other than Kansas or other U.S. law).

It obviously refers to God's law. Duh.

(I can't wait to see Roeder try that argument in court.)

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

It obviously refers to God's law.

Yep. One possible outcome is that the judge decides believing in God's law is unreasonable.

Unfortunately the presiding judge is not Richard Dawkins.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I didn't say it would do anything for your lawyering skills.

I know. Tell me you did not see the satire.

At its very core, this is nothing more than a dispute over the definition of murder -- a concept which lacks a universally objective definition upon which all races, creeds, religions, etc. agree. We are not talking about the law of gravity here.


Forget about the facts of this murder or about trying murder at all.

It is a shame than the state legalities make all of this so bloody convoluted that lawyers need to be hired to argue esoteric loop-holes or definitions that were created by previous lawyers.

Your comment: "By the way, if you ever really want to get to the heart of any State's laws, just pick up.... " is not really an option for most folk except for professional arguerers.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Tell me you did not see the satire.

Okay: I did not see the satire.

At its very core, this is nothing more than a dispute over the definition of murder -- a concept which lacks a universally objective definition upon which all races, creeds, religions, etc. agree. We are not talking about the law of gravity here.

I guess so, if you think that the dispute over the meaning of murder is an insignificant one.

Forget about the facts of this murder or about trying murder at all.

?

It is a shame that the state legalities make all of this so bloody convoluted that lawyers need to be hired to argue esoteric loop-holes or definitions that were created by previous lawyers.

Except the Constitution requires it. And would you rather have an unrepresented defendant attempting to engage on her own the government's esoteric loopholes and labyrinth of judge-made laws? I don't think so.

Your comment: "By the way, if you ever really want to get to the heart of any State's laws, just pick up.... " is not really an option for most folk except for professional arguers.

I suppose that's true. The option becomes a more convenient one depending on one's proximity to a law library or access to Lexis Nexis. Anyway, it's still true that the pattern jury instructions will give you a nuts and bolts view of what exactly the government needs to prove in order to secure convictions in court.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Yes. You know that the jury is provided with only a strictly defined quantity of information, right?

No. The concept of "jury instructions" is probably not widely understood.

#2355

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by maddog

No. The concept of "jury instructions" is probably not widely understood.

I wasn't talking about jury instructions specifically there. I'm sure ITSOZ (along with most people) knows that juries are not given all of the information that the court -- or even the public -- has. That they are often sequestered during trial, that they are ordered not to read press reports of the trial, etc. The particular jury instruction in this case, as I explained, has to do with the jury's discretion to find the defendant guilty of some other charge than the one the prosecutor seeks conviction for.

The jury would need to be "instructed" that that option is within its discretion.

[D. Scarlatti]

"Roeder, who has no connection to the pro-life movement ... "

Is that true?

[California Tanker]

In Kansas, if you murder a pregnant woman, are you charged with two counts of murder, as happens in some places?

The unusual status of the unborn sortof straddles the line in some places.

NTM

[Qingdai]

In most states it's an enhancement, rather than a second charge of murder. Just like if you killed someone if they were a protected case.
Kansas is not one of those states.
Link to most likely unreliable "right to life" website with possible relevant laws:
http://www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm

[D. Scarlatti]

This is good.

[D. Scarlatti]

Judge is running a tight show otherwise, not letting the defense move the focus away from the prosecution's case:

At one point Friday, District Judge Warren Wilbert stopped defense attorney Mark Rudy from using the word abortion when cross-examining a witness who had not first used it himself.

[Prosecution eyewitness] Ryding steadfastly skirted the word abortion when pressed — leaving defense attorney Mark Rudy so plainly frustrated that he asked Ryding whether he had previously discussed his testimony with any officials other than detectives.

Testimony Day One.

[D. Scarlatti]

Defendant on the stand:

“I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children. I shot him,” he testified, adding at another point, “If I didn’t do it, the babies were going to die the next day.”

Was he remorseful? No, Mr. Roeder said without emotion. After the killing, he said, he felt “a sense of relief.”

Mr. Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., told jurors that he had a growing sense of his own faith and opposition to abortion in the 1990s after watching “The 700 Club,” the evangelist Pat Robertson’s television talk show. Mr. Roeder’s views on religion and abortion, he said, went “hand in hand.”

Mr. Roeder acknowledged under cross-examination that he had, as early as 1993, thought about killing Dr. Tiller. A year before the shooting, he said, he had gone to Dr. Tiller’s church with a gun intending to shoot him. (Dr. Tiller was not there that day, he said.) And he said he considered other alternatives: cutting off Dr. Tiller’s hands with a sword, shooting him from a distance with a rifle, or finding him at his house.

He's everything you'd imagined.

[D. Scarlatti]

Guilty, after half-an-hour of deliberations. Barely enough time to grab a coffee.

[Qingdai]

The defendant speaking probably clinched the deal.