scott roeder, abortion, george tiller, jezebel 1.jpgBefore researching Scott Roeder’s trial for the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, I thought pro-aborts were paying such close attention to proceedings simply to try to magnify the event as a PR stunt to implicate all pro-lifers.
After researching, I realized much of the reason pro-aborts were watching the trial so closely was to guard their interests….

Should Roeder have been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, of “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justify deadly force,” or worse, acquitted by the “necessity” defense, because he “reasonably believe[d] … deadly force [was] necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to … a 3rd person,” all laws protecting abortion would have been in danger of collapse.
I must add I fear such a ruling might have led to an outbreak of vigilantism against abortion workers.
Still, I believe Scott Roeder was denied his right to a fair trial solely because his reason for murdering Tiller was that Tiller aborted babies for a living.
All that was to get to this February 8 Associated Press story, which my column last week dovetails into. BTW, if the corrupt KS Supremes are the final arbiters of this case, Roeder is sunk…

Attorneys for Scott Roeder… have asked a judge for a new trial or Roeder’s acquittal, arguing that the judge was wrong when he didn’t instruct jurors that they could consider the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter….
It is unlikely that District Judge Warren Wilbert will reverse himself on his own rulings when he hears arguments on it March 9, the same day he sentences Roeder for 1st-degree murder and aggravated assault.
Of greater importance will be the opinion of the KS Supreme Court when it ultimately considers during the appeal whether the judge erred in keeping jurors from considering a voluntary manslaughter conviction….
In addition to contending that the court may have erred in instructing jurors on the so-called voluntary manslaughter “imperfect self defense or defense of others,” the motion argued that the court also may have erred in granting a prosecution motion to ban the so-called necessity defense, which may have led to an outright acquittal.
Other arguments for a new trial included adverse rulings to the defense involving motions to reconsider bond, throwing out subpoenas of defense witnesses, denial of a change of venue, and various objections during trial, among others….
Roeder’s attorneys built their case – including putting their client on the witness stand – on the hope that Wilbert would allow jurors to consider a conviction on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter because Roeder sincerely believed he was defending unborn children….
A key issue in the appeal will be whether “imminent threat” should be decided on an objective basis as ruled by the judge or on a subjective basis – as Roeder’s attorneys argued in claiming their client believed the threat was imminent….

[Photo via Jezebel]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...