Tuesday, January 5, 2010

State of Kansas vs. Scott Roeder

This is an article (or series of articles, depending on how motivated I am), which will detail the (continuing) legal events in this case in Kansas. Scott Roeder is charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller. He was charged in Sedgwick County District Court in Wichita with one count of first degree murder and several lesser charges, included aggravated assault because he allegedly threatened others with the gun he allegedly used to shoot Dr. Tiller.

Background:

Dr. George Tiller was one of only a few physicians perform later term (third trimester) abortions in the United States. His clinic, in Wichita, Kansas, was a frequent target for anti-abortions protesters. Although the author personally finds the practice of abortion to be an abomination, this article is not about abortion. This article is about a legal proceeding: a criminal prosecution for the crime of murder.

The Law:

In Kansas, first degree murder is defined thus: "Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed (1) intentionally and with premeditation; or (2) in the commission of, attempt to commit, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto. Murder in the first degree is an off-grid felony." K.S.A. 21-3401.

This means that the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Roeder killed Dr. Tiller intentionally and that he did it with premeditation. There is no time limit on the premeditation, but it is generally considered proof of premeditation that he drove to the church and got out of the car with a gun in his hand.

In Kansas, the off-grid crime of Murder in the First Degree is punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison without parole, and a maximum of life in prison. The other two charges of aggravated assault are punishable by 11 to 31 months in prison, depending in criminal history. Under Kansas law, this crime would not be eligible for the death penalty.

Mr. Roeder has pleaded not guilty. He has, however, confessed that he killed Dr. Tiller. He attempted to use the defense of justifiable homicide, stating that his actions were to protect the lives of others. The judge rejected this defense, noting that among other legal hurdles it would have to jump was that Dr. Tiller's actions were causing imminent threat to others, something which was not true when Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher at his church. In addition, the limited references to this defense in Kansas law indicate that the person killed needed to be committing an illegal act. Abortion, even during the third trimester, is legal in Kansas.

On Friday, January 8, 2010, the Hon. Warren Wilbert ruled that the defense could argue for a conviction of Voluntary Manslaughter because Judge Warren said that they could try to convince the Jury that Mr. Roeder had an honest but mistaken belief that circumstances existed that justified the use of deadly force. Prosecutors have filed additional motions to try to limit the defenses that can be used, and to prevent defense attorneys from trying to put abortion on trial. Judge Wilbert has already indicated, however, that he will not allow any such thing to happen.

Status of the Case:

Voire Dire (jury selection) was scheduled to begin at 8:30 AM on January 11. However, prosecutors filed additional pre-trial motions and the Court entered an order closing voire dire to the public to protect the privacy of the jurors and potential jurors. Both the prosecution and defense agreed with the order, which is permissible under Kansas law. Voire dire is expected to commence again on Wednesday. The Court will hear oral arguments on the prosecution's motions asking for additional restrictions on the defense on January 12, 2010.

UPDATE: January 13, 2010
On January 12, 2010 the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the trial judge in this matter to reconsider his order which closed the voire dire process to the media and the public. They did so because he had not given the press and public sufficient notice and right to comment on the matter, and because he had not considered other, less restrictive, ways to accomplish the same goals (to preserve veniremen candor during the questioning process).
On January 12, 2010, Judge Wilbert also clarified his ruling that he would allow Mr. Roeder's attorneys to present a voluntary manslaughter defense. He indicated that he would decide, on a case by case basis, the relevance of any particular testimony as to Mr. Roeder's state of mind, but said that he thought it possible at the conclusion of the evidence, he might be required to instruct the jury in the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter, rather than first degree murder.

2 comments:

  1. I am constantly amazed at how our legal system is allowed to be used as a sideshow. I bet this drags on for a while when it should take about 15 min. His defense will argue the "honest but mistaken belief" that killing the man in church was necessary to prevent more deaths. Did he even attempt to talk him out of performing more abortions? Probably not, so how did he arrive at the conclusion he needed to kill him? I think I could rip big holes in this defense and I have not attended a single day of law school.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please understand that I don't think this defense has any merit. I think that once the premeditation is proven, then the rest of Mr. Roeder's acts will speak for themselves and I should also point out that this is an extremely risky defense: Mr. Roeder has to testify about his state of mind, and contrary to what is seen on TV, it is actually quite rare for the defendant to take the stand. Most attorneys do not want their client subject to cross examination by a skilled prosecutor, and the Sedgwick County prosecutors are very good indeed.

    ReplyDelete