Blockbuster Ruling in Kansas Abortion Murder Trial

[jimmy olsen]

Even though I consider myself on the prolife side of the spectrum, this is just an insane ruling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34810725/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Some fear abortion ruling could spur violence
Suspect will be allowed to argue voluntary manslaughter in volatile case

Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 1:34 p.m. PT, Mon., Jan. 11, 2010

WICHITA, Kan. - On a balmy Sunday morning, Scott Roeder got up from a pew at Reformation Lutheran Church at the start of services and walked to the foyer, where two ushers were chatting around a table. Wordlessly, he pressed the barrel of a .22-caliber handgun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller, one of the ushers, and pulled the trigger.

As his premeditated, first-degree murder trial begins Wednesday, no one — not even Roeder himself — disputes that he killed one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.

But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense is not appropriately considered with premeditated first-degree murder when there is no evidence of an imminent attack at the time of the killing, and jury selection was delayed. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote. "Such a ruling has far reaching consequences and would be contrary to Kansas law."

More violence against providers?
With secret jury selection proceedings stalled, the key questions are now being asked outside the courtroom: Will the judge's decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under draconian federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics? And what does it all portend for the unfolding case itself and the inevitable legal challenges to the nation's abortion laws?

Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., has admitted to reporters and in a court filing that he killed Tiller. The prosecution stands ready with more than 250 prospective witnesses to prove it.

News of Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert's decision infuriated Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who performs late-term abortions.

"This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women," he said. "That is the effect of the ruling. This is an outrage."

Hern said it's irrelevant that Wilbert won't decide until after the defense presents its evidence whether to allow jurors to actually consider a conviction on the lesser charge.

"The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform," Hern said. "It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge, but he is carrying out the will of the people of Kansas who are trying to get out of the 19th century."

Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction on that charge could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.

'I am flabbergasted'
A man who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers said in the wake of the judge's decision that he has changed his mind about attending Roeder's trial.

The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to observe the court proceedings quietly next week.

"I am flabbergasted, but in a good way," Spitz said of the judge's decision.

Spitz acknowledged that the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter defense may influence some people who in the past wouldn't kill abortion providers because of the prospect of a sentence of death or life imprisonment. "It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk," he said.

The Feminist Majority Foundation also denounced the ruling, saying Wilbert essentially was allowing a justifiable homicide defense. The group, which supports abortion rights, urged the Justice Department to file federal charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Decision opens the door
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.

In Des Moines, Iowa, even militant anti-abortion activist Dave Leach agreed that the decision opens the door to presenting the same evidence as for justifiable homicide. It was Leach who wrote the 104-page legal brief that Roeder signed and submitted to the court in which he admitted killing Tiller.

"The closer we come to a court actually addressing these issues, the less danger abortionists are going to be in," Leach said. "The violence started in 1992 when FACE was passed, which made the penalty for sitting at the abortion door ... about the same as for shooting an abortionist and ever since the courts have simply not addressed the issues that it looks like this judge is going to take a step to addressing."

As events unfold inside a Wichita courtroom, the Kansas Supreme Court is considering a challenge from four media outlets, including The Associated Press, over the judge's decision to ban reporters from from witnessing jury selection.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[dps]

It's a stupid ruling, because it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter.  I'm sick of murder trials where the defense is essentially, "Yeah, I killed him.  Here's my excuse".  Hell, even O.J. had the relative grace to at least deny he did it, instead of trying to excuse it.

[Admiral Yi]

Bizarro ruling.

If only Marty hadn't quit the forum we could have a lively discussion on the relative merits of elected vs. appointed judges.

[katmai]

Bizarro ruling.

If only Marty hadn't quit the forum

Again?

[ulmont]

It's a stupid ruling, because it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter.  I'm sick of murder trials where the defense is essentially, "Yeah, I killed him.  Here's my excuse".  Hell, even O.J. had the relative grace to at least deny he did it, instead of trying to excuse it.

I dunno, I have a sentimental attachment for the "sonofabitch needed killing" justification.

[DisturbedPervert]

an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force

Allahu Akbar!

[Caliga]

Wow... can that judge be disbarred/debenched/whatever for that ruling?

[Faeelin]

I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?

Yes, yes, there's the idea that ou still obey the law even if you disagree with it. but he killed hundreds of babies.

[derspiess]

When I saw the thread title I thought this somehow involved Blockbuster Video.

Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion.  I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.

[Caliga]

Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion.  I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.

Well, that's beside the point (which you seem to be agreeing with).

[Faeelin]

Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion.  I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.

By viewing it as analogous to removing a mole?

[Grallon]

There's moles and moles...  When it's no bigger than a wart - abort away.  But when it's almost fully formed that's another story.

EDIT: However even in such cases nobody should be justified to kill others - especially not religious nutjobs.




G.

[chipwich]

This isn't a ruling at all. It sounds like the judge just let the guy ARGUE that he should recieve a lesser punishment. For all I care he could argue that the deserves a pension and free meals at the Piraeus

[Eddie Teach]

I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?

Yes, yes, there's the idea that ou still obey the law even if you disagree with it. but he killed hundreds of babies.

It's not that much different than an anti-war protestor assassinating a bomber pilot.

[The Minsky Moment]

This isn't a ruling at all. It sounds like the judge just let the guy ARGUE that he should recieve a lesser punishment.

That is a ruling.  Ordinarily, you can't make arguments to a jury that are directly contrary to law.  So for example, the prosecution can't argue that a person being tried for a drug transaction should be convicted of murder because "drugs kill."  And a defendant on trial for killing a Air Force bomber pilot can't argue justification on the grounds that he was trying to save the lives of Afghan civilians.  the judge is supposed to make rulings of law and keep irrelevant and prejudicial matter from the jury.

EDIT - I see PW has already made the bomber analogy.