Skip to main content

View Diary: DA Angela Corey Now Seeks 60 Years Against Marissa Alexander In 2nd Trial (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What is the State's position on this? (0+ / 0-)

    I recognize that there's a widespread belief that she acted in self defense (certainly, there's a lot of compelling circumstantial evidence to that effect that I've seen on Teh Interwebz such that I've come to feel the same), but I'm curious what the state is alleging here.  Anyone have any good links to bring me up to speed?

    It's been a long time since I've faced this issue but two of the defense arguments I had thought were already settled, at least as a matter of federal Constitutional law.  First, I believe that they are correct that she cannot receive a longer sentence than she received at the first trial due to double jeopardy; please don't ask me to cite that, however, as I'm reaching back to my memory of old bar exams in AZ and CA, and so I may be wrong or the law may have changed on that point.  Secondly, however, the defense is not going to win the 10-20-life argument unless there are independent state grounds; the California three-strikes law, which is pretty similar in establishing drastic sentences outside of a judge's discretion, has been extensively litigated but has withstood most scrutiny under the federal Constitution.  Certainly, it seems extraordinarily vindictive to seek a sentence that high here.

    Somewhat off topic, but I'm reminded of the Kerry Kennedy case in suburban NY a few days ago, where the state went to trial on pretty weak facts because they felt that a dismissal would have looked like favoritism, which in fairness it would've looked like favoritism.  I used to practice criminal law in AZ so am familiar with the DUI laws there (which unfortunately does not have pre-trial diversion, unlike NY), and I was really surprised that the state moved forward in Ms. Kennedy's case because, at least per the newspaper reports, the state seemed to concede the essential facts, that Ms. Kennedy's impaired driving was due to accidental (thus involuntary) ingestion (she took sleeping pills rather than thyroid medication) and constituted a full defense to the charges.  I'm wondering if this case has similar echos - they're moving forward on political or public policy grounds and not because they have an exceptionally strong case.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 03:29:24 PM PST

    •  She went to the ex's residence, got into an (0+ / 0-)

      argument, went to her car, got a gun and fired it at him.
      To make matters worse, she assaulted him again while on bail for the first charge.
         What more do you want for a prosecutable case? IANAL but it seems to me that this should be a slam dunk conviction.
         The sentence is mandatory under 10-20-life.
          The public uproar over the case is based on a misconception of the testimony.

      •  you say that as if her behaviors were in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez

        in isolation and not in the context of their relationship.

        Example. THEY got into an argument. And in the past at least, more than once according to police reports and the restraining order, when that happened he'd physically assaulted her. That does effect her intent, her motive, what went on inside her as to why she did what she did. It is reasonable that she felt very threatened--especially because she just had a baby.

        Seems to me you list "what happened" in a biased way. My understanding is that her "ex's residence", though officially his, was either where she had lives or was staying at the time. You say it as if she sought him out in particular, possibly to pick a fight. They got into a fight. He could have started it for all we know.

        Some of the public uproar is that going to jail for so long when no one is physically injured-law or not-seems wrong. Especially in the context of an abusive relationship with a power differential that was often in the other direction, which seemingly is documented. And more especially in the context of the fact that rapists and child molesters get much less time than that quite often. Many murderers do too.

        If you are a lawyer, remember that the public  isn't evaluating the merits of the case on only the application of the law in an analytical way. Incorporated into their assessment of the fairness of M.A. sentence is how fair it seems given the entire context.

        •  Per the court's SYG findings, she had not lived (0+ / 0-)

          at that residence for 2 months. She had obtained a restraining order against the ex-husband, and yet she violated her own restraining order by showing up at his house.
              As for going to jail for such a long time: Once again, per the court, she fired what she calls a warning shot at the ex-husband. It penetrated a wall behind him and was deflected into the ceiling of the adjacent room.
              Mr. Dunn is looking at a 60 year sentence for a very similar act: Firing a pistol at someone.
              Apparently, many people on this site feel that women have a right to shoot at their ex boyfriends and husbands.
              There will always be disparity in sentencing in any legal system. But the law in Florida is very clear about use of a firearm while committing a crime. The law applies to whites as well as blacks. I've been on a jury which convicted a white man of manslaughter with a firearm, which would have sent him away for life under 10-20-life.
             The fact that Ms. Alexander didn't hurt anyone is a matter of luck. The criminal justice system exists to protect the public from, among other things, people who want to settle arguments with gunfire.  

          •  you have an attitude (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Denise Oliver Velez

            "apparently many people on this site feel that women have a right to shoot ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands"

            Not a single person has expressed that. You have decided to take it that way, draw that conclusion and/ or exaggerate for effect or whatever the right word is in English for how you state that I sure there is a better way for me to say it.

            If the exact circumstances were reversed...abusive relationship, power differential but the man was abused not the woman, admitted physical violence to the shooter minutes before they got the gun---I'd feel the same way (I"ve a dear male friend physically abused and intimidated by a spouse).

            People feel protective of her mostly because of the nature of their relationship, which is documented. IT is  also hard for people to ignore his recanted report that he had physically attacked her after she locked herself in the bathroom, and that if she had not fired the shot he would have hurt her, and that he himself thought he "probably deserved it".

            That doesn't mean we favor women and want men dead. It may seem that way because more abusers that severely injure their spouses are men, mostly because men are physically almost always stronger than a woman in a hetero relationship.

            What were her reasons for going over there? You speak as if she went to have an argument and confront him. Apparently, she called or texted to go over there to pick up some of her property/belongings that were still in that house, where she used to live. Her ex doesn't dispute why she went there yet you use it in your list of reasons why she is to blame or it was bizarre behavior. Probably not a good idea but kind of complicated also if you need your things and they are there where you used to live at the guy's house. She just had a baby, chaotic time, probably made a bad choice to just txt him (did it mean he should leave? Not sure she still had a key) and go get the stuff herself.

            You keep leaving out the human rationale why people do things and list what she did as damning. What she did is understandable and human given her experience. It also was wrong. But the guy had just grabbed her neck after she'd locked herself in the bathroom (didn't he bust down the door first?) and threatened to kill her because he was angry and accusing her the baby wasn't his. She tried to get out but the garage door didn't open. She didn't go to the garage to get the gun, but grabbed it not able to get out. It just makes more sense, too.

            But whatever, it's not worth arguing. I know some people here may seem angry at men but if confronted would really distinguish it as being angry at the victimization of someone already victimized.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site