Wednesday, April 1st, 2009
Via my colleague Damon Root…
Accepting a plea bargain that her attorney described as unprecedented in American jurisprudence, a 22-year-old Maryland woman yesterday agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of other defendants in the death of her son under the condition that charges against her be dropped if the child rises from the dead.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 at 1:27 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
I read that story a few days ago, thought it was interesting that the court doesn’t consider you delusional if everyone around has the same delusion.
DNA testing will come of age in this one.
What were they supposed to do? Tell her she was nuts and then go to church next Sunday and sing praises to their own version of someone who supposedly rose from the dead? That would be hypocritical.
thought it was interesting that the court doesn’t consider you delusional if everyone around has the same delusion.
Obama is the new Steve Jobs.
Wait, shouldn’t that be a standard part of any plea bargain for murder?
Radley, any thoughts on the Ryan Moats case? Especially considering the officer just resigned. I don’t remember seeing it on this site and was wondering what, if any, your take would be.
It’d be a great plan if her son had an undocumented twin.
Officer resigns over Ryan Moats traffic stop: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040209dnmetmoats.919caed3.html
This asshole will work at another police dept.
When Khruschev died, the Soviet Politburo was surprised to learn that he wanted to be buried in Israel.
The request was denied when the KGB pointed out that Israel had the world’s highest resurrection rate.
;)
Wow…so, if this woman really believes that her son could come back from the dead, how can she be deemed a competent witness? Won’t a defense attorney say that she is obviously not of sound mind and that her testimony should be rejected?
Any lawyers out there who can answer this?
Mattocracy,
Not to state the obvious, but most of the people in that courtroom believe that people can rise from the dead.
Well, I guess you have a point there. I guess she’s not any more crazy than our current and previous presidents.
Matt,
I doubt the similarity will be acknowledged or appreciated. Those crazy mystics with their invisible friends don’t appreciate the occasional irony and constant humor in their beliefs.
Cases like these kill me.
Seems completely reasonable to me, I mean if people are going to be resurrected (in this life) the killing them isn’t such a big deal. Perhaps better would be assault and child abuse charges since I’m reasonable certain dying and coming back to life is traumatic but certainly it is not as severe as dying and not coming back to life. I would support a clause in all guilty verdicts for murder (not just pleas) that they be reduced to assault if the victim comes back to life.
Max if everyone gets to come back to life willy nilly what would make that bearded fellow in the Tiberias so special? In fact, how would that make anyone special? Where would our claim to exclusivity come from?
Z,
I’m only concerned with the legal aspects, reality has nothing to do with that.
which brings me to Mattocracy’s question, I’m not familiar with Maryland and the legal aspects of their take on metal competence to act as a prosecution witness but unless you have boatloads of money to spend on lawyers the state will win any serious mental health case. I’m familar with a woman who was convicted of arson for setting a bed and fire and jumping in it, while committed to a metal hospital, after having been placed under strict observation within the hospital by an examing doctor as an immediate threat of being suicidal – the only doctor who the state would permit to testify was able to determine from an interview weeks later that at the moment she started the fire when was mentally competent although she wasn’t 10 minutes earlier when she was placed under observation or 1 minute afterwards while she was being treated (and restrained).
I didn’t realize that sanity was so subjective. And in some respects, so is Irony. I wonder what Ayn Rand would have to say about all this? It would probably be long winded and wordy causing me to lose interest.
Wasn’t this a story line on NBC’s “Passions”?
“the only doctor who the state would permit to testify”
“was able to determine from an interview weeks later that at the moment she started the fire when was mentally competent although she wasn’t 10 minutes earlier when she was placed under observation or 1 minute afterwards while she was being treated (and restrained).”
The above two quotes do not go together by accident.
It isn’t a question of money. The woman could have some strange views and still be competent to stand trial. It ain’t the highest standard in the world.
I would support a clause in all guilty verdicts for murder (not just pleas) that they be reduced to assault if the victim comes back to life.
They’ll be overturned if the victim comes back to life. “The victim is currently alive and living in Houston, Texas” is a pretty good defense against a murder charge. Even if they take the stand and testify that you killed them, who’s going to believe them?
Lord have mercy, if state officials are recognizing the possibility of the dead rising, this could make probate really interesting.
Before you call that absurd, think about it – someone is going to try it.
That her attorney would sign off on such nonsense lays the groundwork for an appeal based on incompetent representation.
mark Z, that your victim is alive is a good defense before conviction but once the conviction has been passed it is darn hard to get it overturned. Anyway, you still have to account for the harm to the victim of being killed and resurrected, which would justify assault if it is anywhere near as traumatic as I expect it would (imagine coming back to life as you’re about to go into the furnace at the crematory for instance). Maybe as a lesser included offense of to murder in cases where the victim comes back to life with an automatic conversion from the murder conviction.
So if the person who I was convicted for murdering turned out to not really be dead, and I then killed them, would double jeapardy then apply and I walk? Wasn’t there a movie about that?
A movie and a remake, but the law is not quite like that. First we are not talking about a mistaken murder but instead a murder where the person comes back from the dead, the murder actually did take place and someone was killed, they just got better so you could kill them again. Second, even if your first conviction for murdering the person was incorrect and you did not actually kill someone, you could be convicted a second time as it is a different act (unless you invent a time machine and go back to when and where the first murder was supposed to have been committed and committed the actual crime you were convicted of).