Analysis of Closing Arguments Part One: Prosecution and Defense’s Discrediting the Gang Charges
After over three years of waiting, and months of trial, the case of Marco Topete accused of the shooting death of Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy, Tony Diaz, finally went to the jury. And while the odds may be clearly stacked against the defendant in this case, his defense made a surprisingly strong case for second degree murder.
Without explicitly saying it, the defense basically conceded that Mr. Topete shot and killed the Sheriff’s Deputy on the night of June 15, 2008.
Where the sides differ is on whether it was deliberate and premeditated, and whether his actions constituted lying in wait. There was also a vigorous defense against the gang allegations.
Given the nearly six hours of closing testimony, we will break this article up into two parts. The first part is the people’s first closing argument and the defense’s thorough job at debunking the gang allegations. We will then present the defense’s discussion of Mr. Topete’s mental state and the rebuttal case by the prosecution in Part II.
The People’s Case
Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton argued that by 8:52 pm on June 15, Marco Topete had already made some decisions that would set him on the path to the killing.
He argued that Mr. Topete had visited a known Norteño gang hangout on Sunrise St. in Woodland. There, a shooting occurred and two shots were fired. Investigators would find the casings from the shooting in Topete’s Ford Taurus.
He said that Mr. Topete left Sunrise with that gun and drove away slowly, wearing the colors of his gang.
Mr. Hamilton would take the step of “publishing” the firearm to the jury – letting them hold the weapon briefly. He addressed the safety issue and noted that some may not feel comfortable holding the weapon – however, all of the jurors did hold the weapon.
There was a brief discussion, prior to the closing arguments, where Mr. Hamilton revealed this. Defense Attorney Hayes Gable offered no objection, noting, “It’s his closing statement.”
It was interesting that, while all of the jurors touched the weapon, some actually would aim the weapon high while others merely picked it up.
During his closing argument, Mr. Gable would point out that, while a number of jurors put the weapon at their shoulder, they actually did not know if Mr. Topete held the weapon at his shoulder or at his waist.
Mr. Hamilton used the weapon to make the point – “How much respect do you think that Marco Topete had coming to him that night [referring to the possession of the weapon] – it must have been awesome.”
“Respect, violence and fear,” he said, “by driving around Woodland – holy cow.”
Mr. Hamilton argued that Mr. Topete had chosen to wear the colors of his gang that night. He pointed out that he was evading the law and had made the comment that he had been “running from the law since Wednesday.”
He said he had many reasons to believe that being caught by Deputy Diaz meant going back to prison for a long time.
Mr. Hamilton went to some length to show Mr. Topete’s animosity towards law enforcement, mainly relying on profanity-laced statements and comments about “pigs” made in jail before and after this arrest.
Marco Topete had prepared a long time ago for June 15, 2008, Mr. Hamilton would argue. He said that while it was clear that he was trying to get Deputy Diaz to go away at first, at some point it moved beyond that.
He suggested that Mr. Topete could have surrendered, could have ditched the gun, could have fled in the car, and made other efforts to leave without shooting and killing the deputy and chose not to.
“Did he take a non-murder choice?” the prosecutor asked the jury. “No.”
He would argue that possession of the gun showed a “readiness to commit evil.”
He had 38 minutes to get rid of the gun, but instead drove to the perfect place which offered cover and concealment, he had all of the advantages, he shot the gun and shot the deputy in cold blood.
Where Mr. Topete positioned himself gave the deputy no chance to defend himself.
The Deputy DA concluded his first closing argument stating that the defendant is guilty of every charge, and every special circumstance has been proven true.
The Defense Attacks Gang Charges Vigorously
The defense clearly tried to build the case of reasonable doubt about the mindset of Marco Topete. They would argue that his intent and mental state precluded having the necessary premeditation and deliberateness of his acts.
The burden that the prosecution has in a case like this is to show that not only did the defendant commit these acts, but also show beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the specific intent to commit these acts in order for it to be a first-degree murder.
As Mr. Gable would argue, “This case is really about the mental state of Marco Topete on the night of June 15, 2008.” He would then focus his case on the specific-intent crimes rather than the general-intent crimes which he says are proven.
Mr. Gable would begin with one of the more thorough and impressive demolitions of gang charges we have witnessed.
There are two specific gang charges. First, there is the charge in count 5 which argues that Mr. Topete committed these crimes as an active participant in a criminal street gang. And then there is the special circumstance charge that argues that, not only was he an active participant, but the murder was committed for the express purpose of furthering the activities of the criminal street gang.
He began by arguing that there is no evidence of any criminal street gang activity during Mr. Topete’s 15 months between his release on parole and the shooting on June 15, 2008.
The prosecution relied almost entirely on Gang Expert and Woodland Police Corporal Ron Cordova’s training and experience to draw gang ties to Mr. Topete.
He argued that Corporal Cordova relied heavily on unnamed sources to make the gang connections. Mr. Gable argued that these statements are, in fact, hearsay and cannot be submitted for the purposes of showing that Mr. Topete is a gang member. They can only be used for the purposes of evaluating the expert’s testimony.
Furthermore, he discredited Mr. Cordova, noting that not only was he a friend of the victim but he also was involved in the interview of Mr. Topete. He asked the jury how much credibility he would have if he had brought in Mr. Topete’s brother, if his brother were a psychiatrist, to testify about Mr. Topete’s mental state.
He argued that Mr. Cordova formed his opinions about Mr. Topete first, and then sought out evidence to back up his opinions.
Furthermore, Mr. Cordova was emotional on the stand, causing him to testify falsely on the child endangerment issue – where he falsely argued that the baby was never in danger – and later had to apologize and change his testimony.
There was, according to Mr. Gable, no witness who came forward to describe a gang act in the 15 months on parole.
But in fact, Mr. Gable argued, the crimes cited by Corporal Cordova were not gang-related at all, but were done for reasons that had nothing to do with gang membership. The police officers cited were shot by individuals for reasons other than for the benefit of the gang.
Mr. Gable argued flatly that Mr. Cordova’s opinions were based merely on rumor and innuendo. Mr. Cordova would argue that Marco Topete would be perceived by the Woodland gang as a highly-respected individual on the street, that he would be in authority and would give permission for gang members to commit acts.
But, Mr. Gable argued, where is the evidence for this, other than his opinions?
None of this was actually shown with evidence. There was no evidence, in fact, to back it up. Mr. Cordova could only rely on his “training and experience,” in testifying as a gang expert.
Mr. Gable pointed out that Mr. Cordova had failed to record any names or specific evidence. Everything was implication or opinion, based on training and experience.
He would argue that, given Mr. Cordova’s involvement in this case and friendship with Deputy Diaz, he had no business even being used as an expert on this case. He argued that they should have gotten a gang expert who was unbiased, rather than a person who was a friend or involved in the interrogation.
Furthermore, it is not clear, Mr. Gable argued, that Mr. Cordova offered a reasonable opinion when he argued that there was never a reason why a gang member would shoot a police officer, other than for the benefit of his gang.
Mr. Gable argued that the sources on which Mr. Cordova based his opinion were never identified, he said that the defense brought its sources in and put them on the stand, which allowed the prosecution to cross-examine and the jury to assess their credibility.
He asked where were the prosecution’s witnesses, that witnessed Mr. Topete active in gang activities during his time out of prison.
Mr. Gable acknowledged that the prosecution had furnished evidence of Mr. Topete’s gang affiliation, both from his younger days as well as his days in prison. But, in order to have perpetrated the act for the purpose of benefiting the criminal street gang, this charge requires that he be an active gang member. His decades-old tattoos and pictures from the mid 1990s do not reach that point.
The prosecution has made much of the defendant’s red shirt and the fact that he had shorts with red highlights on them on the day of the murder. Mr. Gable argued that he wore that clothing all day. He wore it when he went to the illegal races, wore it when he was drinking in Davis, wore it when he dropped his wife off at work and when he picked her up.
Finally, Mr. Gable made the point that, while the prosecution has tried to argue that the act of a noted gang member in killing a police officer will bring glory to the Norteño Gang, the issue is not whether what he did furthered the criminal street gang, but rather whether he intended to do that by shooting and killing Deputy Diaz.
And the answer to that rests in whether or not he deliberately and premeditatedly killed the deputy in the first place. He would go on to argue that Mr. Topete’s frame of mind precluded such calculation. We will cover this portion of the closing argument along with the prosecution’s rebuttal case tomorrow.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It would be nice that once the verdict is read, if the bailiff could carry out the sentence on the spot…
[quote]It would be be illegal after the verdict is read, if the bailiff could carry out the sentence on the spot… [/quote]
FIFY
“his defense made a surprisingly strong case for second degree murder.”
Are you serious? He laid in wait, used a kid as bait, set up a kill zone and shot a cop in the back. He will be lucky if he gets life without parole.
How long do you think the jury will deliberate? I bet they will be back today. Wednesday at the latest.
“He laid in wait, used a kid as bait, set up a kill zone and shot a cop in the back. “
I guess I missed seeing you in the courtroom. I’ll get into why that might not have happened tomorrow.
“He will be lucky if he gets life without parole. “
He’ll most likely get the death penalty.
“How long do you think the jury will deliberate? I bet they will be back today. Wednesday at the latest. “
I agree.
No I am not a sadist or a masochist and didn’t personally know anyone involved so I didn’t go to court.
David, am I right to think that if Topete is sentenced to death*, he will be the first person given that sentence in a Yolo County court since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977? Here is a current list of everyone on death row** ([url]http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Capital_Punishment/docs/CondemnedInmateListSecure.pdf[/url]) and none I see are from Yolo County, though it’s possible there were others there since 1977 who died before being executed.
*Sentenced to death meaning, if he lives 30 years or more in prison and no changes in the law or court rulings in between vacate his sentence, he will be executed around 2041.
**One death row inmate, Douglas Stankewitz (who describes himself as a Mono Indian, despite his Slavic surname), was sentenced to die on October 12, 1978. That was 33 years ago, next week. He claims he is innocent ([url]http://www.freechief.org/[/url]). I don’t know why Mr. Stankewitz is still alive 33 years hence, but perhaps there is a serious doubt about his guilt which has delayed his execution?
This website ([url]http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/showthread.php?961-Douglas-Stankewitz-California-Death-Row[/url]) says, “Douglas Stankewitz was sentenced to death in Fresno County on October 12, 1978 for murdering a young woman named Theresa Greybeal on February 8, 1978 by suddenly shooting her in the head after he and his friends had stolen her car and driven around for awhile with her as a captive.”
My take on a 33-year delay: I favor the death penalty for murderers. However, it makes little sense in my view to kill this guy at this point. There are three good reasons to execute a murderer: 1) It fits the crime; 2) vengeance; and 3) deterrence.
But after 33 years, the punishment, decades in prison plus execution in my view no longer fits the crime. I believe (figuratively) in an eye for an eye. That means as little time behind bars as possible and then death. Here, the guy has been punished for 33 years in prison. Death would just be piling on. Second, the need for vengeance eases with time. Decades after everyone has forgotten the victim, a vengeance killing to me brings no real satisfaction that he got what was coming to him. And third, when most people who were around when the killing took place are either now old or dead, there is simply no deterrence factor in killing this kind of inmate.
I still believe in the death penalty. I think it has to be carried out swiftly (inside 5 years of sentencing) or it is mostly pointless.
Rich:
I want to saysomeone was sentenced to death from Yolo but had their sentence commuted or reduced. I’ll have to check.
[quote]He argued that Mr. Topete had visited a known Norteño gang hangout on Sunrise St. in Woodland. There, a shooting occurred and two shots were fired. Investigators would find the casings from the shooting in Topete’s Ford Taurus.[/quote]
[quote]He began by arguing that there is no evidence of any criminal street gang activity during Mr. Topete’s 15 months between his release on parole and the shooting on June 15, 2008.[/quote]
I was not in the courtroom, so I make no judgments, but I find these two statements interesting…
Yeah and I forgot to include the fact that according to Hays Gable, the individual who lives at the said “known Norteno gang hangout” is not a validated gang member something that had emerged during cross examination.
“David, am I right to think that if Topete is sentenced to death*, he will be the first person given that sentence in a Yolo County court since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977? “
What about the guy who murdered the CHP Officer (Stevens) about 5-6 years ago? I thought he was sentenced to death.
Yes that’s one right there.
Strangely, Volarvich ([url]http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/showthread.php?1021-Brendt-Volarvich-California-Death-Row[/url]) is absent from that list I linked to above.
Some death penalty news ([url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/texas-man-to-be-released-after-25-years-thanks-to-new-dna-evidence.html[/url]) today out of Texas: [quote]Texas prosecutors have agreed to release an Austin man who spent nearly 25 years in prison on a murder conviction after new DNA tests suggested that another man was responsible for his wife’s beating death. District Judge Sid Harle is expected to free Michael Morton after a final hearing Tuesday. … Morton’s lawyers have accused John Bradley, the local district attorney, of [b]suppressing evidence[/b] that would have helped clear Morton, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for his wife’s fatal beating the year before. That evidence included a transcript of a police interview indicating that Morton’s son said the attacker was not his father. The Innocence Project eventually obtained the transcript through a Public Information Act request.[/quote] DNA was the nail in the coffin of this case. However, when someone who is innocent is sentenced to die or just serves many years in prison for a crime he did not commit and it is found that the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, I believe the prosecutor deserves a very harsh, very long prison sentence.
[i]”Morton, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 …”[/i]
God, I am stupid. This was not a death penalty case at all. But it still is a horrific mistake to steal 25 years from the life of an innocent person.
This straightforward excerpt from Lawbrain may help? http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Murder
“The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.
The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.
Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists “when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.” Malice may be implied by a judge or jury “when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”
Think about it…Firing 17 rounds from a high powered rifle at a uniformed peace officer following a car chase…
[i][quote]“This was not a death penalty case at all. But it still is a horrific mistake to steal 25 years from the life of an innocent person.”[/quote][/i]How, then, would you label taking the life of an innocent (death-penaltied) person? Or leaving his family without him, but with generations of undeserved stain that never gets corrected?
Granted that we never can know how many innocent, but convicted, men and women we’ve executed over the years. But, what percentage of wrongful executions in our justice system do you consider acceptable?
My own relative/example, Margaret Scott, finally was declared innocent in 2001–somewhat late to help her.
More recent, but lesser known crimes and trials, have left innocent people with no one caring to reconsider their guilt because the capital punishment system can’t withstand declarations of such error and because, well, they’re dead anyway.
None of your three conditions is attainable in our society. Well, maybe one, but only if you accept a level of misdirected vengeance. And your less than five year execution deadline never again will be met in the U.S. Time to stop executing people. More than past time to stop killing innocent people.
To AdRemmer: Thanks for elucidating on the concept of “malice”.
[quote]Yeah and I forgot to include the fact that according to Hays Gable, the individual who lives at the said “known Norteno gang hangout” is not a validated gang member something that had emerged during cross examination.[/quote]
Though perhaps not intentional, this is “sandbagging” the reader with additional “facts” the reader could not know unless in the courtroom. Since YJW has a clearly biased viewpoint, in favor of the defense, it is very difficult to draw conclusions, and is why I refused to do so. But a separate drive-by shooting that the defendant appears to have been involved with would certainly make me, as a juror, have at the very least a fleeting thought of “gang violence”…
However, setting the gang issue aside, I believe AdRemmers discussion of what constitutes “malice” in a murder case is much more instructive here…
[i]”How, then, would you label taking the life of an innocent (death-penaltied) person?”[/i]
I will wait until someone post-1977 is executed and there is compelling evidence of his innocence to “label” that. I know there are many people who were convicted and sentenced to die who were subsequently found not guilty. I don’t know of anyone who has been executed who was clearly innocent.
I am not saying our system is perfect. Far from it. I believe our appeals system is exceedingly constipated and inadequate when dealing with dubious evidence.
In most cases for many years, the appeal never even starts. So the convicted, guilty or not, just rot away for decades before someone takes up those cases.
If we wanted to, we could have a system which dealt with all of the courtroom/judicial appeals questions within 2-4 years of sentencing. But I think that alone is inadequate in a death case.
I think we need some kind of independent body questioning all of the evidence–including doing things like DNA testing and re-interviewing witnesses to make sure their testimony holds up and finding other witnesses or other forensic evidence which supports or negates the conviction.
To my mind, what took place in Italy with Amanda Knox was a much fairer appeals system: she automatically got a second trial, where the weak and bad evidence presented against her in her first trial was decimated by her defense team. If Knox had been convicted in the U.S. — granted, the U.S. system likely would not have let in some of the evidence presented in the first trial — she would spend at least the next 10-20 years in prison awaiting her appeal. That is not justice.
[quote][i]”Some death penalty news today out of Texas”[/i][/quote]Some death penalty news today out of Woodland:
Jury finds Marco Topete guilty on all counts. He now faces death penalty.
Everything I know about this case suggests the verdict was correct.
That said, it bothers me that in our death penalty eligible system, we exclude anyone from the jury who is personally opposed to the death penalty. I think this tends to bias juries in favor of people who are generally more pro-prosecution.
I don’t know if this would hold up to constitutional muster, but I think it would make sense to allow jurors who oppose capital punishment to decide guilt or innocence, but excuse them from the sentencing phase and not replace them on the jury, as long as at least 6 of the jurors who voted guilty remained on the panel. To make that work, the judge would have to question the jurors before they were seated on this issue, and make sure that at least 6 jurors (plus possible alternates) were qualified to vote in the penalty phase.
[i][quote]“He argued that Mr. Topete (wearing gang colors) had visited a known Norteño gang hangout on Sunrise St. in Woodland. There, a shooting occurred and two shots were fired. Investigators would find the casings from the shooting in Topete’s Ford Taurus.”
“Yeah and I forgot to include the fact that according to Hays Gable, the individual who lives at the said “known Norteno gang hangout” is not a validated gang member something that had emerged during cross examination.”[/quote][/i] Geez, I thought I was keeping up with this case, thanks to the [u]Vanguard[/u]. But I don’t remember anything about this “house warming visiit.” Did I just miss this this whole incident?
It sounds like a gang gunfight or drive by shooting that certainly would support the idea that Mr. Topete was a gang member that day. What does the fact that Hays Gable isn’t a “[u]validated[/u] gang member” do to eliminate the place as a known hangout?
Could Topete have gotten his third strike from this incident if he’d not ended up killing Deputy Tony Diaz?
How did the defense–in “one of the more thorough and impressive demolitions of gang charges we have witnessed”–deal with this apparent gang activity? Were any of the DA’s charges tied into the incident?
[quote]Furthermore, he discredited Mr. Cordova, noting that not only was he a friend of the victim but he also was involved in the interview of Mr. Topete.[/quote]
Guilty on all charges. We learn that Mr Gable didn’t discredit Corporal Cordova to the 12 people that mattered.
I will get into that in tomorrow’s story, the defense argued that there is little known about that shooting other than Mr. Topete was seen in the area and they found shell casings in his vehicle (which at least leads me to other questions).
Someone asked me if another jury would have come to another verdict – I don’t know. I think the defense made a better showing than I thought they would and I would add that they made a stronger closing statement, but I think in the end, the facts just supported a conclusion of first degree murder. I do have a problem with the gang portion and I may talk about that later this week – I don’t think this had anything to do with gangs, I think Topete was about to get thrown in prison for the rest of his life and panicked.
[i][quote]“I am not saying our system is perfect.”[/quote][/i]We agree on that. While the appeal process is a problem, that’s not as big a concern for me. Killing innocent people on behalf of our society shouldn’t be a byproduct of our justice system.
Do you grant that the death penalty has been carried out on innocent people? In so, why would you want to wait until one is executed in the post-1977 era before you label the incident horrific or something worse? It seems you’re assuming that no innocent person ended up executed before then, but not that you’re not sure enough to state that to be true.
Waiting for proof positive of a new mistaken execution is a tough stand to take at this point. Given the lack of interest in looking back at dead people’s alleged guilt and the reduced number of executions due the constipated appeals processes, it could be awhile before you come around.
We cannot be positive about every person’s guilt, just as we cannot be positive that an innocent person has been executed post-1977. So, I keep coming back to a zero tolerance for building in the possibility. Use our other penalties, and allow us to let them out after their horrific, stolen 25-year imprisonments.
DMG: ” I think the defense made a better showing than I thought they would and I would add that they made a stronger closing statement, but I think in the end, the facts just supported a conclusion of first degree murder.”
You seem more concerned with the presentation than with the facts. That seems really odd.
Having a fair trial has always been my concern in this case. The facts were not really in dispute. One of my big concerns was whether the court appointed attorneys would present a vigorous and credible defense. I think they did.
Maybe you’d like to retract most of what you wrote.
[quote]Topete has been convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances, including enhancements of murdering a peace officer, killing to avoid arrest, killing as a gang participant and lying in wait. Topete was also convicted of six other charges, including transporting an assault weapon, criminal street gang activity and endangering a child.
[/quote]
I too am in agreement that the death penalty needs to be revisited. I am for the death penalty but perhaps with more stringent requirements. The Topete case is not a good case for the death penalty opponents to hang their hats on.
[quote][i]”The Topete case is not a good case for the death penalty opponents to hang their hats on.”[/i][/quote]Very true, except for opponents who are convinced than killing another human is immoral or contrary to accepted civilized standards or ineffective or applied with discrimination or just plain wrong.
They’d be just fine using the Topete case as yet another wrongful application of a death penalty that shouldn’t exist. They wouldn’t even need to consider all of David’s legal and extenuating life circumstance issues to know that killing this person is the wrong thing for us to do.
I’m more concerned about the tiny number of people we kill in error–by mistake, by unsavory prosecution, by sloppy police or defense work or by public pressure. Killing one innocent person by using our justice system’s death penalties is indefensible.
Since we all know that we cannot be perfect in determining guilt in every case, maintaining the death penalty first requires deciding that the state killing innocents is acceptable, irreversible “collateral damage” in civilized society. After many years coming to realize how imperfect we are, I’ve concluded we should stop purposely allowing this terrible likelihood to continue.
The fact that everything suggests that the claimed, “desirable” results of a death penalty are unfounded–and that having it puts the U.S. in such undesirable company–caps the deal. Just saying it’s obvious to me.
Just saying
Well spoken. For me, the very concept of “an eye for an eye” whether literally of figuratively does nothing but perpetuate a culture of violence and has no place in a civilized society. Further as you pointed out, for me there is no reconciling the concept of acceptable “collayteral damage” and that of a civilized society.
[quote]Someone asked me if another jury would have come to another verdict – I don’t know. I think the defense made a better showing than I thought they would and I would add that they made a stronger closing statement, but I think in the end, the facts just supported a conclusion of first degree murder. I do have a problem with the gang portion and I may talk about that later this week – I don’t think this had anything to do with gangs, I think Topete was about to get thrown in prison for the rest of his life and panicked.[/quote]
“…in the end, the facts just supported a conclusion of first degree murder…”. Yet your commentary doesn’t seem to match this conclusion…
Just Saying opined: [quote]I’m more concerned about the tiny number of people we kill in error–by mistake, by unsavory prosecution, by sloppy police or defense work or by public pressure. Killing one innocent person by using our justice system’s death penalties is indefensible.[/quote]
JS, [b] more than [/b] the victim’s of homocide — in the US — annually — 18,361?
“Yet your commentary doesn’t seem to match this conclusion… “
Which commentary? I’ve offered I think two views on the trial, first I disagree with the gang theory and second that the defense offered a stronger closing statement than I thought and I considered a second degree murder theory at least a plausible conclusion. To my knowledge, I never said I thought it was second degree murder.
[i][quote]“For me, the very concept of ‘an eye for an eye’ whether literally of figuratively does nothing but perpetuate a culture of violence and has no place in a civilized society.” [/quote][/i] Interesting point, medwoman. One has to wonder whether growing up where legally killing bad people is the “right thing to do” has any influence on why distressed people shoot up co-workers, assassinate politicians and doctors and otherwise “take the law into their own hands” this way.[i][quote]“JS, more than the victim’s of homocide — in the US — annually — 18,361? “[/quote][/i]No, of course not, AdRemmer. No one is right to kill any innocent person. I was trying to point out that I’m especially concerned about the innocent victims of execution–somewhat more than the guilty ones. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.