Later, he confessed to everything.

Charged with 1st degree murder, he found it hard to plead guilty and check himself into a lifetime of prison, so he went to trial. His only hope lay in two possible outcomes: the jury would feel some sympathy for him and let him off with less than Murder 1 or the facts, as they came out in the trial, wouldn’t support the full charge. A mosquito had more hope of surviving the winter than Jim did of getting any leniency.

I was appointed to defend Jim.  How could I defend a guilty person?  The answer starts with: he was guilty…but of what?

When the Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy on the victim testified, he broke the case wide open for Jim.

To prove Murder in the 1st degree, the prosecution must show that the killer “premeditated and intended” to kill the victim. That means the killer had some time to think about things, to realize what he was doing and, if possible, stop before death. For instance, if someone shoots a victim once, you could say it was intentional or maybe even accidental. But the third, fourth, and fifth shots would certainly be premeditated. In Minnesota, 2nd degree murder is defined as “intentional but without premeditation.”

Justivce means not only convicting a guilty person but also making sure the conviction fits exactly what the person did. Which one was Jim guilty of?

The Medical Examiner testified about the cause of death—choking around the throat that cut-off air to the victim which suffocated her. But…in this case, when Jim started to choke her, he broke a part of her spine that would have caused death instantaneously, without the long suffocation. For the defense, the Medical Examiner opened a huge door.

If Jim had broken her spinal column quickly, killed her instantly, then how could he have thought about what he was doing? How could he have premeditated the killing? He certainly intended to kill the girl, but did he have time to contemplate it, to premeditate the killing?

The jury decided he did not and found him guilty of 2nd degree Murder.  You may disagree that he deserved a break but to answer your question of how could I defend a guilty person, this case shows you how. I have to admit it wasn’t easy, but I think justice was done here.  What do you think?

The post How Can You Defend a Guilty Person? Part II appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Last summer, a father played with his wife and three kids at a local amusement park. About midnight, they started to leave when seven men surrounded his daughterl, tapped her in the head with an inflatable bat and made comments. The 41 year old suburban father yelled at the group who then turned to attack him. Viciously, they hit and stomped him into unconsciousness before his family. He sustained permanent damages. It’s been covered several times by the StarTribune at www.startribune.com, Aug. 5,2009.

Yet the perpetrators, who pled guilty under a deal with the Scott County Attorney, received probation with about four months in the workhouse. The Victim and his family approved of the deal.

As is required in all felony cases in Minnesota, each man went through a pre-sentence investigation where most of them made excuses for what they did. “Wrong place at the wrong time” to describe how they “accidentally” got involved in the beating. Their defense lawyers continued by telling the sentencing judge the victim’s name hadn’t been released so the client couldn’t apologize and another complained of the “biased” media coverage against the client.

Having practiced as a defense lawyer for years, I’ve been in this exact spot many times: representing a person who has committed a reprehensible crime but still required, as the defense lawyer, to advocate for leniency. Let me tell you–it’s a tough spot to be in!!

Although most states have Victim’s Rights laws which give the victims an opportunity to participate in the resolution of cases, short of trial, I still feel sorry for many of them.

Is it the crush of caseloads that make it difficult for judges and prosecutors to get appropriate sentences, is the crowding of jails and prisons the reason? Are the defense lawyers too good for the prosecutors? Are we more worried about the defendant’s rights than the victim’s rights?

Here’s the irony: so many people were outraged by this incident and demanded tougher sentences however, as a country we imprison more people than almost all other countries. So, does simply “getting tough” solve the problem and give justice to the stomped man?

Let me know your thoughts or solutions.

The post Victim Gets Stomped but not the Perpetrators appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.