CrimLaw

---

Death Cases:

(1) Imprisoned for life, paroled, became a solicitor, committed arson and attempted murder, went back to prison for life and thus we see the cycle completed.

(2) Three men break into your farmhouse, police response is hours away and your family is home. The American response? Shoot 'em dead. The British response? Go back to sleep, because if you do anything to harm these poor fellows we shall send you to prison. And, of course, when you get out the burglars' friends will threaten you so that you will have to go into hiding (because you wouldn't want go back to jail for shooting some thug who showed up with a knife or gun).

(3) Congress is trying to pass a "fetal homicide" bill. Many States already have this sort of statute. Is this the sort of evolution in the nation that justifies changes in the constitution (such as mentally retarded people not being eligible for the death penalty)? It would seem pro-abortion advocates are worried it is:

"The real purpose of the law is to define a fetus at any stage of development as a person," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. "That undermines Roe v. Wade."

(4) In the NC Peterson case the prosecution has gone to the tried and true tactic of showing the jury a disgusting crime scene video (twice). Score on for the prosecution. However, the prosecutor's crime scene technician's testimony seemed to be a draw. He minimized the actions of Peterson when he ran over to his wife on the floor but then testified about how Peterson's son had to pull him over to a couch. He also apparently contradicted other police officers who testified that the reason they were suspicious was that the blood on Peterson's clothes was dry (he said they were moist). It feels like this day probably came out slightly in the prosecution's favor (because you cannot underestimate the emotional impact of seeing that video twice).

(5) Malvo's attorneys are arguing that the prosecution should have to account for every penny it spends, just like the Defense does. They are stating that the fact that federal money is coming in skewing the system and that they should be entitled to equal funding (or at least more than they are getting).

"In effect, the defendant is being prosecuted by both the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia," wrote lawyers Michael Arif and Craig Cooley. "Therefore, fundamental fairness and due process would require that the defendant be allowed access to federal funding for his defense," including the use of mental health experts, other expert witnesses and the costs of transporting and housing defense witnesses.

Very interesting. If they win it holds all sorts of implications for indigent Defendants because of all those law enforcement and prosecution programs which are backed by federal funds. Of course, being of necessity a realist and of the opinion that judges can foresee implications as well as I can, I very much doubt the motion will be granted.

.