Abortion doc killer Scott Roeder has his trial delayed
21 replies, posted
[quote]The trial of Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing a doctor known nationwide for performing late-term abortions, was delayed on Monday morning in Wichita, Kan., as prosecutors called for limits to the defense Mr. Roeder may present to jurors.
[b]Even as jury selection was scheduled to start, court officials announced that prosecutors had filed a legal motion in the case against Mr. Roeder, an abortion opponent accused of shooting Dr. George R. Tiller in the head as Dr. Tiller attended his Kansas church last May.
Prosecutors, who are trying Mr. Roeder on a charge of first-degree murder, want to bar defense lawyers from presenting a theory that might lead to a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, which carries a far milder punishment and which could offer Mr. Roeder a chance to present his views on abortion in court.[/b]
Legal arguments over the matter were set for Tuesday, and the case is now expected to start on Wednesday,
[b]Whatever the timing, Troy Newman, the leader of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group with headquarters a few miles from the courthouse, says he will probably be at his desk, as usual, and certainly nowhere near the courtroom.[/b]
National groups like Mr. Newman’s have publicly denounced Mr. Roeder.
[b]“This trial isn’t meaningful for the movement,” Mr. Newman said last week. “What happened is antithetical to the Christian cause and to the stated foundation principles of pro-life.”[/b]
But for a contingent of abortion opponents — those who argue that the killing of an abortion doctor can be considered justified by the abortions it prevents — Mr. Roeder’s case has become a rallying point.
[b]
“He’s a hero,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a longtime abortion opponent from Kansas City, Kan., who was once ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of abortion clinics. “His case is certainly the most important in my lifetime,” added Ms. Dinwiddie, who said she and several others intended to travel to Wichita for the trial.[/b]
In a way, Mr. Roeder’s trial would appear open and shut: prosecutors plan to call church members who say they saw Mr. Roeder walk into the church foyer, fire a gun into Dr. Tiller’s head and run away. And though jurors may not be told as much in court, Mr. Roeder has admitted to the shooting in jailhouse interviews and, as recently as last week, in a 104-page legal memorandum he filed himself to the judge.
Yet Mr. Roeder, who has pleaded not guilty, and his supporters have made it clear that they hope the trial will focus less on who killed Dr. Tiller than why — in essence, an effort to send the jury on a broader examination of abortion and the practices of one of the few doctors in the country who was known to provide abortions into the third trimester of pregnancy.
[b]
The judge in the case, Warren Wilbert of Sedgwick County District Court, has said he will not allow the case to be transformed into a trial on abortion. But he also indicated late last week that he might allow jurors to consider a defense theory by which Mr. Roeder could be convicted of voluntary manslaughter if jurors were to conclude that Mr. Roeder had, as Kansas law defines it, “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”[/b]
It was that ruling that led prosecutors to file their last-minute challenge over the weekend, arguing that voluntary manslaughter ought not be considered in killings involving premeditation and that the circumstances laid out by the state’s manslaughter statute must involve some “imminent threat,” not a long-term, future concern.
[b]
Earlier, Judge Wilbert rejected Mr. Roeder’s efforts to present a so-called necessity defense, pursuing an acquittal on the basis that he was justified in his actions to prevent some greater harm. Still, the possibility now that jurors may be allowed to consider voluntary manslaughter, which carries a far shorter sentence than the life imprisonment he could face if convicted of first-degree murder, was seen as a victory for Mr. Roeder and a chance for his public defenders to lay out his views on abortion at the trial.[/b]
Advocates of abortion rights said that even allowing the argument to be presented in court was appalling and dangerous. In a statement, Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said allowing such a defense would “embolden anti-abortion extremists and could result in ‘open season’ on doctors across the country.”[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/us/12roeder.html[/url]
The case is a clusterfuck waiting to happen.
Also, rate me bad reading. [i]The title should read Abortion doc killer Scott Roeder has his trial delayed.[/i]
Your thread title is wrong
[QUOTE=TH89;19576388]Your thread title is wrong[/QUOTE]
I noticed. Rated myself bad reading.
Thread title confused me. Scott Roeder isn't the abortion doctor, the guy that he killed is.
Ah, beaten to it.
[QUOTE=gnome;19576415]Thread title confused me. Scott Roeder isn't the abortion doctor, the guy that he killed is.
Ah, beaten to it.[/QUOTE]
There's gonna be books all around ITT
[QUOTE=gnome;19576415]Thread title confused me. Scott Roeder isn't the abortion doctor, the guy that he killed is.
Ah, beaten to it.[/QUOTE]
I think it's more funny that way.
[QUOTE=Musicfreak59;19576396]I noticed. Rated myself bad reading.[/QUOTE]
I will fix it for you :)
[QUOTE=TH89;19576517]I will fix it for you :)[/QUOTE]
Why thank ya good sir.
There is a broad legal term for this sort of thing, when due process takes a back seat for politics and populist intrigue. It is a term that can refer to a wrongful conviction or any such mistake or otherwise shameful decision on the part of the judicial system as a whole.
It's called a miscarriage of justice.
[quote]conviction for voluntary manslaughter[/quote]
So aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is voluntary manslaughter? Even if you shoot someone knowingly and fail to kill them it should still be at least attempted murder.
The religious wingnuts will claim this is divine intervention.
[quote]“He’s a hero,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a longtime abortion opponent from Kansas City, Kan., who was once ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of abortion clinics. “His case is certainly the most important in my lifetime,” added Ms. Dinwiddie, who said she and several others intended to travel to Wichita for the trial.[/quote]
Do ho ho, and i thought Anti-Abortion protesters believed in the Sanctity of life. Se sounds like a massive fucknut.
[QUOTE=MercZ;19577186]The religious wingnuts will claim this is divine intervention.[/QUOTE]
Yeah uh huh people will think that too much media and political influence taking place within the justice system is Divine Intervention.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19576604]There is a broad legal term for this sort of thing, when due process takes a back seat for politics and populist intrigue. It is a term that can refer to a wrongful conviction or any such mistake or otherwise shameful decision on the part of the judicial system as a whole.
It's called a miscarriage of justice.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit win
Incoming religion flamers.
[QUOTE]“He’s a hero,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a longtime abortion opponent from Kansas City, Kan., who was once ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of abortion clinics. “His case is certainly the most important in my lifetime,” added Ms. Dinwiddie, who said she and several others intended to travel to Wichita for the trial.[/QUOTE]
Am I the only one picturing an incredibly short and fat woman with a southern accent?
Stay classy Wichita.
[QUOTE=Raxas;19577964]Am I the only one picturing an incredibly short and fat woman with a southern accent?[/QUOTE]
Only picture the internets gives me of her is this
[img]http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/11/regina-dinwiddie-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg[/img]
Looks like typical bible-thumper material.
[QUOTE=MercZ;19578023]Only picture the internets gives me of her is this
Looks like typical bible-thumper material.[/QUOTE]
What about the other ones?
This is an interesting and clever angle for him to play. "Yeah I killed him, but it was to save the unborn".
The problem I see with that strategy is that pregnancy does not equal live birth, not even in the US. It is not guaranteed that all women who are pregnant will deliver live babies, unfortunately for those who desperately want children. Even in an advanced country like the US, many things can and do sometimes go wrong.
So he's going to argue he 'saved' these children but he has no way of proving even ONE would have been born alive.
Just like to say, I'm a Christian, and I find the killer despicable. Outright murder is not the answer to anything.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;19577131]So aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is voluntary manslaughter? Even if you shoot someone knowingly and fail to kill them it should still be at least attempted murder.[/QUOTE]
[quote=wikipedia][I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter"]Voluntary manslaughter[/URL][/I] occurs when the defendant kills with malice aforethought ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal%29"]intention[/URL] to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability. Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offence of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_%28legal%29"]provocation[/URL], however others have been added in various jurisdictions.[/quote]
There are certain factors that can make it voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.