Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
You're talking about two incredibly different crimes as if they are the same thing. Possession and possession with intent to distribute (or whatever they're codified as in a given jurisdiction) is a strict liability offense. You have cocaine in your possession, you are guilty of possession. You have an amount over the prescribed limit, you are guilty of the intent ot distribute crime. There's no need to prove a mental element. Prove the possession and you're done.
Homicide crimes are completely different. You need to prove the action and the mental state, with the degree of intent varying depending upon the degree of homicide crime charged. First degree was never going to apply here, there was absolutely no evidence of premeditation. When you can't even prove a cause of death proving that the accused planned to cause the death is always going to be a massive longshot. The manslaughter charge required showing that the accused was at a minimum the cause of the death, and quite frankly there wasn't anythign that pointed to that. There was circumstantial evidence of bizarre behavior, but nothing that exceeds the beyond a reasonable doubt level. There was an equal amount of concrete evidence to support the claim that girl drowned and the father covered it up, that amount being next to nothing.
Blaming the jury is such garbage. These are people tasked with an incredibly difficult responsibility, pointing the finger at them after they suffered through weeks of brutal testimony and hours upon hours of conflicting and confusing evidence because you read some stories and watched the news is beyond ridiculous.
|
Thanks for the response...but I'll blame the jury thank you very much. She had something to do with it. You don't behave like she did for the month following and not have something to do with the childs death. If the girl drowned, you call 911, you don't go partying.