By the way, in his panic, Church also stole the man’s wallet, cell phone and other personal items—they were found in the defendant’s car.

Well, naturally - how else to prove your manliness than by taking trophies?

I wonder if the defense lawyer having to put this argument forth will have the decency to squirm when *that* little detail is bought up?

Pam, Pam, Pam, women were put here to be pawed by men. That is their lot in life. Treating a man like a woman is certainly cause for a murderous rage and a small stealing spree.

Phoenician, you brought up an interesting point. I don’t know if you meant it, so I’m not trying to argue with you.

But should we blame defense attorneys for using the gay panic defense? I think they are just presenting the best possible case for their client. The blatant homophobia in society is not their fault, and I can’t really blame them for exploiting it.  Their job isn’t to promote progressive values, it’s to achieve the most favorable outcome for their client. Do others have different opinions?

Well, penn, this is why people don’t like lawyers. Pretty much everyone who’s going to speak in a courtroom has to take an oath to be truthful. The defendant, the witnesses, and even the jury. Lawyers, otoh, are supposed to be there, not for the good of society, to serve the truth, etc, but to do whatever will benefit their client. The values system is different, and our common sense revolts against it, even if we realize there is some merit to the system as it is, to protect people.

“But should we blame defense attorneys for using the gay panic defense? I think they are just presenting the best possible case for their client.”

Defense attorneys aren’t obliged to use any and all means, including the unethical, to defend their client.  They know damn well that these defenses are at cross-purposes with actual justice.  Would we even be asking this question if it was a defense attorney trying to persuade people that their white client should be treated leniently because it’s only natural to fear and loathe young black men in baggy pants, so how can you blame his violent reaction to being asked for directions by one?  Or a prosecutor relying on negative stereotypes instead of actual evidence to convince a jury of an accused’s guilt?

Lawyers, otoh, are supposed to be there, not for the good of society, to serve the truth, etc, but to do whatever will benefit their client

Not true.  You can find unethical lawyers, I’m sure, but most of us take seriously our responsibilities, which include never knowingly presenting false evidence, and never making arguments not supported by evidence and law.

When your client is accused of murder, and there’s no doubt he did it, dirty up the victim if you possibly can. That’s practically a commandment for defense attorneys. It’s one reason why criminal law is a rough business.

but, but, but dat sex is so icky.

I didn’t say defense attorneys should use any and all means to get a favorable outcome. I said they should present the evidence in a way that is most beneficial to their client. If their client says the guy made a pass at him, is it wrong to prey on the homophobic beliefs of the jury?

Also, I certainly don’t hate lawyers. If I am ever in trouble with the law, I certainly want an attorney that gives me every benefit of the doubt. I don’t care what the evidence is against someone, they deserve to have an expert in the law present that evidence in the best possible light.

If their client says the guy made a pass at him, is it wrong to prey on the homophobic beliefs of the jury?

Yes.

That was easy. What else do you have for me?

By the way, I notice that the police declined to even bring hate crime charges because Church became “enraged” by the alleged pass by Verrette. It’s pretty sad when the prosecutors are uninterested in pursuing justice in a crime known to be committed by the accused. It would appear that the attitude is, “Oh, on less faggot, BFD.” Pretty sick.

grolby, do you care to explain? I’m not a homophobe or a troll or anything. I completely support gay rights and gay marriage. My understanding is that the role of the defense attorney to make the possible argument for their client based on the evidence presented. They often have to play on the emotions and irrational beliefs of the jury. Their job is not to promote progressive values.

I find the whole situation depressing because such a strategy actually works. The double standard between men and women that Pam points out is also extremely aggravating. A woman who killed a guy for hitting on her would be thrown in prison faster than you can blink, well unless it was a black or hispanic man and she was white in which case she could probably make the same argument.

What is it about the benighted people and police of Gretna?

If you remember Katrina events, the citizens of Gretna were ready to meet refugees from New Orleans with a police bockade and guns.

Not the most enlightened town on the planet.

“My understanding is that the role of the defense attorney to make the possible argument for their client based on the evidence presented.”

That doesn’t extend to making the implicit argument that certain types of people have less or no right to live free of assault and murder than their fellow citizens, though.  When you say “How could my client resist his rage at being propositioned by a gay man?”, you’re arguing that a gay man’s right to not be murdered is less than that of a straight man.  When you say “How could my client resist his rage at learning that his sex partner was transgendered?”, you’re arguing that a transperson’s right to not be assaulted is less than that of a cisperson.  When you say “That stripper got exactly what she wanted [sexually assaulted by a detaining police officer],” you’re arguing that strippers have less right to bodily integrity than non-strippers.  You are arguing against the idea every citizen has a full share of civil and human rights.  I mean, it’s undermining one of the fundamental principles of the legal system with one good assertion that the victim was one of those people.

A friend of my husband’s was murdered almost two years ago, and the defense was probably the most fucked up thing I have ever heard—“suicide by rape”.

http://www.kcci.com/news/14407502/detail.html

Guilty, murder one, thank goodness.  Knowing how awful that trial was for Jamey’s family and friends, I can’t imagine them having to see his murderer convicted of a lesser charge.

preying mantis, I agree with the argument you are making, and I think the jury should reject the defense on the exact grounds you claim. It is not reasonable to murder and rob someone because they hit on you, period. But, if the attorney thinks the jury would be responsive to a homophobic line of argument, should you not make it because society as a whole is worse off because of those widespread beliefs?

I guess I view the role of a defense attorney more narrowly. I am not a law scholar, but I think of a defense attorney almost as an extension of the accused. They are there to provide legal expertise and be an advocate for the accused even if that person’s actions or beliefs are despicable. I think that even homophobes deserve to have someone make their case for them. In a sane world, their irrational hatred would earn them scorn instead of sympathy. In the real world it could save their life.

I view this as a symptom of our societal ills and not as a cause.

But should we blame defense attorneys for using the gay panic defense? I think they are just presenting the best possible case for their client. The blatant homophobia in society is not their fault, and I can’t really blame them for exploiting it.  Their job isn’t to promote progressive values, it’s to achieve the most favorable outcome for their client. Do others have different opinions?

I agree with you. Rea has a problem in her(his) objection in that such a defense is not contradicted by evidence or law, and presenting it is not lying. I feel a defense attorney has a responsibility to present the best case they can, including this sort of defense when nothing else presents itself.

And they should squirm while doing so.  And the jury should rightfully view it - and the client, NOT the lawyer - with contempt.

What is it about the benighted people and police of Gretna?

If you remember Katrina events, the citizens of Gretna were ready to meet refugees from New Orleans with a police bockade and guns.

Not the most enlightened town on the planet.

Indeed - as a NOLA resident I have to remind you that this is NOT New Orleans.  Our suburbs are full of the crazy.  Jefferson Parish (Metairie) sent David DuKKKe to the state lege after all.

I think they are just presenting the best possible case for their client.

If the lawyer is having his client testify to something that isn’t true - that the victim “made a pass” - then he’s suborning perjury. That’s beyond the scope of “best possible case”, because it isn’t possible, it’s counterfactual.

Lawyers can and should be disbarred for that, in a perfect world. In the real world, I suppose clients will lie without being directed to, but lawyers should really be putting these claims to the smell test, don’t you think?

Why are we talking about defense attorneys? From the article, the “gay panic” argument was made by the accused killer when he confessed, not by his lawyer.

Chet, there isn’t any evidence that the guy didn’t make a pass at him. He very well may have, but that doesn’t excuse murdering and robbing him from gay induced panic. The problem with the defense isn’t that it is necessarily a lie. The problem is that it feeds off of the homophobic feelings of the jury.

For clarity, what I am about to write is NOT a defense of gay panic. Quite the reverse.

Going purely by the article, I suspect that the victim did in fact make a pass at the guy. If the man was someone who routinely made a habit of helping the homeless and the vagrant, it would have been in the article, and there would be public outrage.

I suspect we have a situation where the victim was cruising for sex, and picked the guy up. And, knowing how that usually works, chances are very, very good, that it happened at a place known for cruising, and that (like the “wide stance” event), it happened under circumstances where, while potentially plausibly deniable, involved such very clear code that only a doorstop wouldn’t know what was going on.

With little else to go on, my money is on the fact that the murderer intended from the beginning to roll the guy, knew very well he was gay, was very clear that he was being cruised for sex, consented to go home with him knowing his intention, and something went wrong in the process -like a clear indication that his closet wasn’t going to keep him from reporting it to the police. I wonder if the “other personal items” included a camera with incriminating photos.

So, my guess is that the “he made a pass at me” part isn’t made up. Which is yet another reason why the whole gay panic defense needs to get pitched everywhere it happens.

When are they going to allow women this “he made a pass at me” defense when she knocks off some pathetic sleazebag pawing at her?

But isn’t it a man’s right to be a pathetic sleaze ball and ‘paw’ women? Isn’t that what helps keep them out of the gene pool?

I would guess that this won’t change until respect for others enters into the average choad’s small and immature mind. Well and maybe it has to do with lack of imagination. Some of the best sexual encounters have happened in my mind. (Yes I have a dirty mind and I’m damn proud of it. So far it’s the only place where the government can’t reach)

Yes, killing choad and the scrotoids would be great sport and would eventually reduce the number of them but there are so damn many of them. What do you do with the bodies?

Chet, there isn’t any evidence that the guy didn’t make a pass at him.

There’s every evidence that the “gay panic” defense is an after-the-fact fabrication. The theft, for instance. Is there any evidence the victim was even gay?

All we know from the article is the victim was murdered and robbed. The suspect confesses to the murder and claims he was enraged after the victim made a sexual advance.

It could be like Lymis suggests and a cruising incident gone horribly wrong.

It could be that the suspect planned to kill and rob him the whole time and made the sexual advance up after the fact.

It could be that the suspect is mentally ill or a raging homophobe and did fly off the handle after sexual advances and decided to rob him because he’s a homeless vagrant without any money.

It could be some combination of the above possibilities. We don’t actually know. The gay panic defense is bullshit because it is not acceptable or reasonable or understandable to murder someone for hitting on you. It’s bullshit because it feeds off of the homophobia of the jury and their fear of “THE GAY”. It is not necessarily perjury, though.

Do you honestly think there aren’t homophobes who would become enraged if a man made a pass at them? There sure as hell are. It can definitely be true. Just like racist lynch mobs actually became enraged if a black man looked a white woman. They weren’t liars. They were hateful violent bigots. But, in a just world being a hateful bigot would bring scorn instead of sympathy.

Penn: But should we blame defense attorneys for using the gay panic defense? I think they are just presenting the best possible case for their client. The blatant homophobia in society is not their fault, and I can’t really blame them for exploiting it.  Their job isn’t to promote progressive values, it’s to achieve the most favorable outcome for their client. Do others have different opinions?

Should we blame Sidney Carlton, the defense attorney for Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam for his closing statement to the jury that if they didn’t vote Not Guilty “Your ancestors will turn over in their grave, and I’m sure every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men.”

After all, he too was just presenting the best possible case for his clients, and the blatant racism in society was not his fault, and his job was not to promote progressive values, it was to achieve the most favorable outcome for his clients. Does anyone have any different opinions?

Someone did.

Phoenician in a time of Romans: I agree with you.

Rape apologist troll.

penn: Just like racist lynch mobs actually became enraged if a black man looked a white woman. They weren’t liars.

Actually, quite often they were.

Are you justifying the murder of Emmett Till because he really did wolf-whistle at a white woman? Sounds like you are…

Are you fucking kidding me, Jesurgislac!? I didn’t justify any such thing. Please, take a reading comprehension class.

Directly following your last quote of mine:

They were hateful violent bigots. But, in a just world being a hateful bigot would bring scorn instead of sympathy.

How the fuck does that sound like I’m justifying lynch mobs? In actuality it looks like I’m making the exact opposite point.

You’re right, some of them were liars AND hateful violent bigots. The fucking point that you can’t seem to understand is that’s a stupid distinction. Who the fuck cares if some of them were liars too? Their reason for killing someone was based on hatred and bigotry whether it is true or not. In a sane world it would be ludicrous to offer the defense that you are a bigot and the object of your bigotry leads you to horrible acts of violence.

Legally speaking, there is a difference between these two arguments:

“What the victim did enraged the defendant and the defendant committed the homicide in an uncontrollable rage; it was not premeditated”

and

“The victim deserved to die and my client was the right man for the job.”

Of course, non-legally speaking, there can be a lot of overlap between those two, especially if the argument is that in #1, the killer was absolutely correct to be enraged. The difference is whether you’re arguing it’s not a premeditated killing, or arguing it was a justified killing.

And no, it is not ethical for a defense attorney to make shit up knowing there is no evidence for it whatsoever, much less to suborn perjury. All lawyers are officers of the court, even if some of them conveniently forget that from time to time.

penn: How the fuck does that sound like I’m justifying lynch mobs?

You were arguing that it’s good behavior for a defense attorney to make the case that a homophobic bigot can’t help killing a gay man for the crime of making a pass at him. So certainly you were justifying letting the individuals who make up lynch mobs off paying the penalty for their crimes, weren’t you?

Their reason for killing someone was based on hatred and bigotry whether it is true or not.

Absolutely. But your position is that a defense attorney ought not to let the members of a lynch mob pay the penalty for their crimes if he can get a jury to agree that their hatred and bigotry is justified. You’re making the argument that defense attorneys should make use of commonplace hatred and bigotry to get their clients off the hook for committing a murder out of hatred and bigotry.

mythago: “What the victim did enraged the defendant and the defendant committed the homicide in an uncontrollable rage; it was not premeditated”
and
“The victim deserved to die and my client was the right man for the job.”

I think both can be summed up quite readily under “He needed killin’”.

Penn’s argument that in a bigoted society, a defense attorney can and should appeal to the bigotry of the jury in order to acquit the murderer who killed from bigotry/hatred, works either way. And is a perfect summary of how the murderers of Emmett Till were acquitted. If Penn has no problem with the defense attorney appealling to bigotry to acquit the murderer of a gay man, he should likewise have no problem with the defense attorney appealling to bigotry to acquit the murderers of a black man.

So certainly you were justifying letting the individuals who make up lynch mobs off paying the penalty for their crimes, weren’t you?

No, I was arguing that it is not inherently wrong for an advocate of the accused to make an argument that is predicated on the prejudices of the jury. It certainly is wrong for the juries to buy such arguments. I made that quite clear.

If a member of a lynch mob was clearly guilty, but was convicted on illegally obtained evidence, would you say that freeing them justifies lynch mobs? No, that’s ridiculous. Just as it’s ridiculous and offensive for you to claim I am justifying lynch mobs by arguing that is not inherently immoral for defense attorneys to play on the prejudices of the jury.

But your position is that a defense attorney ought not to let the members of a lynch mob pay the penalty for their crimes if he can get a jury to agree that their hatred and bigotry is justified.

I would argue, as I have several times, that the defense attorney is an advocate for the accused. As long as they don’t cross certain lines of truth, they should make the best possible case for client. All defense attorneys of guilty suspects are trying to get their clients to not pay for their crimes. It is not their job to determine the guilt of their client. I wouldn’t want to live in a society where defense attorneys determine your guilt before you even get a fair trial.

If Penn has no problem with the defense attorney appealling to bigotry to acquit the murderer of a gay man, he should likewise have no problem with the defense attorney appealling to bigotry to acquit the murderers of a black man.

I have problem with violent racists and homophobes who kill people. I have a problem with the bigots that acquit other bigots because of their own prejudices.

Would you prefer defense attorneys not defend those they think are guilty, or those whom the jury may irrationally sympathize with? Honestly, what do you want them to do? If I am ever in trouble with the law, I do not want my attorney thinking about the broader social issues surrounding my defense. I want them to pretend they are me and make the case that I would if I was a legal expert.

I think both can be summed up quite readily under “He needed killin’”.

That’s a gross mischaracterization of mythago’s post.  Many states have a partial defense related to extreme emotional disturbance, allowing a jury to convict the defendant of a lesser homicide because the killer was just too angry to help himself.

It’s bullshit in this case, given the obvious signs of remorseless killing and premeditation, but it very well might be a defense in Louisiana that the killer’s lawyer would be negligent in failing to raise if it’s got a shot.

Unlike “he needed killin’,” it’s a recognized defense.  It’s an icky one, but defense lawyers are stuck with making uncomfortable arguments sometimes.  *Especially* if the death penalty is on the line.

You were arguing that it’s good behavior for a defense attorney to make the case that a homophobic bigot can’t help killing a gay man for the crime of making a pass at him. So certainly you were justifying letting the individuals who make up lynch mobs off paying the penalty for their crimes, weren’t you?

You really are completely stupid, aren’t you?

Penn’s position is quite clear, and I see he’s laid it out again.

“I would argue, as I have several times, that the defense attorney is an advocate for the accused. As long as they don’t cross certain lines of truth, they should make the best possible case for client. All defense attorneys of guilty suspects are trying to get their clients to not pay for their crimes. It is not their job to determine the guilt of their client. I wouldn’t want to live in a society where defense attorneys determine your guilt before you even get a fair trial.”

If you were a Christian, J., you’d be completely at home in the Inquisition.

It’s very simple, Jesurgislac. “penn” is the kind of unprincipled bastard who, if he let’s say ran someone over with his car in a case of negligent manslaughter, would find himself an expensive lawyer or three and make sure he got off with community service, because he’s jus too good for prison. PiaToR is the same, of course, but what else would you expect? And, quite naturally, this completely unprincipled and cowardly stance is in fact the only reasonable perspective on the issue. Which of course makes them both absolutely correct in every moral and ethical detail, and makes you Torquemada.

See? Simple!

Aaron, have you ever read “A Man For All Seasons”?

I look forward to you eschewing any defense attorney if you’re ever arrested for a crime, on principle.

Aaron, I’ll have to check if my graduate support plan covers legal defense for vehicular manslaughter. I doubt does.

I really would like to know how those of you calling me a lynch mob justifying unprincipled bastard would have our legal system work. Should defense attorneys determine who is guilty beforehand and only offer half-assed defenses if they think their clients are guilty? Should they refuse to plead the case and force their clients to plead guilty? Honestly, how should it work?

Aaron: Which of course makes them both absolutely correct in every moral and ethical detail, and makes you Torquemada.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

penn: Should defense attorneys determine who is guilty beforehand and only offer half-assed defenses if they think their clients are guilty?

Wow, talk about moving the goalposts! Penn, you yourself brought up what you think defense attorneys ought to do: what Sidney Carlton did. Appeal to the bigotry of the jury, in the sure confidence that a jury that shares the bigotry that led to the murderer killing his victim, won’t condemn a man for doing what they can see themselves doing. You support the acquittal of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. You are against the individual members of lynch mobs being successfully condemned for their crimes.

That you think that a defense attorney who does not resort to the “appeal to the bigotry of the jury” move is only offering a “half-assed defense” does say something about you, too.

Should defense attorneys determine who is guilty beforehand

Note too that in the case of the murder of Weston “Tony” Verrette, if the reports are accurate, there is actually no possible question that Louis Church is guilty: he has confessed to murdering Verrette. It’s only a question of whether Church should be allowed to claim that (a) Verrette made a pass at him and (b) that pass justified Church murdering Verrette. You think that an appeal to the homophobic bigotry of the jury might work, so it’s justified: which, as I noted, puts you on the side of those who felt that members of lynch mobs shouldn’t be convicted of their crimes.

Crap defense.  We had a widower in our synagogue who took in borders for free as he was going crazy from the loneliness.   

What is it with our legal system?  The defense pulls this from their @ss and the prosecutors in Schuykill County PA want murder charges in a street fight that resulted in a death.  Are all our lawyers graduates of Jones Law Skool and Lube?  Is there a oversupply of homeskooled religio-crazy attorneys with freshly printed JDs?

The stoopids of the Universe can not allow the defense to be stare decisis.  How many of us would be more than happy to end Creepy McButtstank if he made a pass?  We would no longer have to endure his long, lecherous, drooling stares and the species would be improved by removing his genes. 

After a few generations, C & W would only be found in museums,  pickups and SUVs would be work vehicles, and public schools would be funded.

You support the acquittal of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. You are against the individual members of lynch mobs being successfully condemned for their crimes.

I have said several times that I do not support their acquittal. You keep saying it and it is fucking bullshit. The case I have made is it is not their defense attorney’s job to convict them. Do you think the prosecutor should have lied to win convictions? If not, it must be because you love lynch mobs and you don’t think they should be punished.

They should be convicted and condemned through the appropriate use of the legal system. You yourself are promoting the lynch mob ethic that getting the right outcome is the only purpose of the law. That has been the brunt of your entire argument. You keep writing as if you have made some arguments about the proper role of defense attorneys, but you haven’t. Your whole argument boils down to 3rd grade name calling and guilt be association.

Note too that in the case of the murder of Weston “Tony” Verrette, if the reports are accurate, there is actually no possible question that Louis Church is guilty: he has confessed to murdering Verrette. It’s only a question of whether Church should be allowed to claim that (a) Verrette made a pass at him and (b) that pass justified Church murdering Verrette.

It actually may be a question of life or death for Church. If he went to Verrette’s house planning to murder and rob him he may well get the death penalty. If he flew off the handle after an unwanted sexual advance he could get the charges reduced. It’s not about justification. It’s about the difference between aggravated and premeditated murder.

I have said several times that I do not support their acquittal.

You have said several times that you support the method of Sidney Carlton - getting the acquittal of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam by inviting the bigotry of the jury to decide. So where in this are you claiming you don’t support their acquittal?

They should be convicted and condemned through the appropriate use of the legal system.

Where have I said otherwise? I just can’t see that the method you advocate - making use of the bigotry of the jury - is in any way an appropriate use of the legal system.

You yourself are promoting the lynch mob ethic that getting the right outcome is the only purpose of the law.

Oh, I wondered when you’d start reaching frantically for “and you’re another!” Forget it, dumbass - I have said simply and repetitively that getting the jury to decide based on their bigoted prejudices rather than the evidence - which in the Verrette case includes the murderer’s confession - is lynch mob territory. For you to claim that it’s “lynch bomb ethic” when I say that the jury’s bigotry shouldn’t be appealed to is just plain stupid.

If he flew off the handle after an unwanted sexual advance he could get the charges reduced.

Uh huh. The lynch mob ethic again. You really do think that a man who makes an unwanted sexual advance deserves to die. You belong with the people who condemned Emmett Till.

I started writing another reply, but it was mainly filled with angry insults, and that is not what I am hear for.

Peace.

Note too that in the case of the murder of Weston “Tony” Verrette, if the reports are accurate, there is actually no possible question that Louis Church is guilty: he has confessed to murdering Verrette. It’s only a question of whether Church should be allowed to claim that (a) Verrette made a pass at him and (b) that pass justified Church murdering Verrette. You think that an appeal to the homophobic bigotry of the jury might work, so it’s justified: which, as I noted, puts you on the side of those who felt that members of lynch mobs shouldn’t be convicted of their crimes.

Again, you are an idiot.  Of course he should be “allowed to claim</a>” this.  He should be “allowed to claim” that God told him to do it, that he was in Timbuktoo at the time, or that Verrette isn’t actually dead if he thinks it is the best defense possible.  It is the role of the attorney to represent their client, not to judge the case. It is the role of the <b>jury to make judgements.

As Dana has pointed out, the defense speaks to what he is guilty of, rather than whether he is innocent. Frankly, stealing the victim’s car says a lot about what a crap defense it is, but you go with what you have.

Procedural fairness will not grant you justice, but the lack of it guarantees injustice. Procedural fairness in the American legal system requires that the defendant be given the best defense they can muster. It is the role of the defense attorney to do this, just as it is the role of the prosecutor to demonstrate his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the role of the judge to apply the law, and it is the role of the jury to decide.

You do not get to say what the defendant is or is not “allowed” to claim in his defense. That is simply wrong.  You get to judge (if you’re on the jury) on whether what is claimed is accurate and reasonable justification.  Ideally, he would present his best defense, the prosecution would present an honest account of the evidence against him, and based on the facts so far presented, the jury would send him down for a long, long time.

Arguing the case from what is in the newspapers is fun for us, but bears somewhat little resemblance to the law.

Indeed.  We’ve been burned on that in NZ recently.

penn: I started writing another reply, but it was mainly filled with angry insults, and that is not what I am hear for.

Fair enough. That you have the maturity not to write a comment full of nothing your rage at who you’ve associated yourself with, does suggest there’s hope for you - whereas there’s no hope for the rape apologist troll.

I think both can be summed up quite readily under “He needed killin’”.

The first is actually an argument against premeditation.  If the defense is “absolutely he killed this innocent person, but it was not, as the prosecution claims, a cold, calculated and pre-planned killing,” you can do that without the bigotry. Or if you’re arguing that the defendant was sexually abused by a male as a child and thus has an unreasonable, disproportionate and violent response to anything he perceives as “interest by a gay guy”.

That is different than “the victim deserved it”, with or without the he-just-snapped defense. Arguing your client did not act out of premeditation is ethical. Arguing that fags deserved to die is not. And you can do the first without the second.

There are different degrees of homicide. I don’t see how it would be ethical for a defense attorney to think “Geez, this isn’t first-degree murder like the prosecution says. But I have to pretend my client did go in there intending to rob the victim and kill him, because if I raise the absolutely true fact that he is a mentally ill homophobe, I might be harming the LGBT cause.”

“because if I raise the absolutely true fact that he is a mentally ill homophobe, I might be harming the LGBT cause”

That’s where your argument falls off the rails, I’m sorry to note. There’s a big difference between arguing that your client is a mentally ill homophobe and therefore not fully competent to stand trial (or not deserving of a full sentence, or whatever) and deliberately playing off the jury’s own bigotry, which resembles that of your client, in order to secure for your client an acquittal or a reduced sentence. The former seems perfectly ethical to me; the latter seems perfectly sleazy, whether you call yourself “esquire” or not.

Oh, and: In order to support the actions of Sidney Carlton, as described above, it is necessary also to support the actions of a defense attorney who successfully gets his client acquitted of a rape charge by convincing the jury that the plaintiff is a slut who was totally asking for it.

The former seems perfectly ethical to me; the latter seems perfectly sleazy

Why, yes, Aaron, that’s what I’ve said, oh, twice now.

Although the ‘whatever’ you’re missing is not about competency, but about intent. That’s why you heard talk on all those lawyer shows about “premeditation” and “murder one” and all that; not all killing is the same. Intentionally planning to kill somebody and then doing it is generally treated differently than if you lose your shit and kill somebody.  If the prosecution claims that the defendant plotted to kill the victim for days, and the accused claims that he had no intention at all to hurt anyone until the victim “gave me one of those looks,” do you refuse to put that evidence in front of the jury? Because bigots might buy that argument too?

Actually, I would have a problem with that jury, because the standard is not “do we absolutely know?” but “do we know beyond a reasonable doubt?”

here’s a big difference between arguing that your client is a mentally ill homophobe and therefore not fully competent to stand trial (or not deserving of a full sentence, or whatever) and deliberately playing off the jury’s own bigotry, which resembles that of your client, in order to secure for your client an acquittal or a reduced sentence.

Aaron, I think there may be a difference in intent, but I don’t think these two approaches would look very different in practice. I don’t think anyone would really play up the homophobia angle. The latter would almost definitely be coded in the language of the former. No one is coming out and saying the victim was icky and had the gay, so he was justifiably killed. The argument is going to be that Church didn’t plan to kill him, but after he made unwanted sexual advances Church just snapped into a rage and killed him.

mythago: There are different degrees of homicide. I don’t see how it would be ethical for a defense attorney to think “Geez, this isn’t first-degree murder like the prosecution says. But I have to pretend my client did go in there intending to rob the victim and kill him, because if I raise the absolutely true fact that he is a mentally ill homophobe, I might be harming the LGBT cause.”

Certainly, if the client is genuinely Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity - that is, he really did kill a man for making a pass at him - he should be remanded to a secure mental institution for treatment either until his mental illness has been cured and he understands that the appropriate response to an unwanted pass is “No thank you”, or until he dies.

Likewise if the claim is “diminished capacity”, since there is no saying when a man might not make a pass at the client, and the client suffer that psychotic state of mental incapacity and commit murder.

As noted in Pam’s initial links at the foot of this post, successful uses of the “gay panic defense” have not, in fact, got the client remanded into the care of a mental institution, but have instead got the client 15 years instead of life. This does not sound like a defense attorney trying to get his client off the hook on the grounds that he’s insane, not criminal.

The argument is going to be that Church didn’t plan to kill him, but after he made unwanted sexual advances Church just snapped into a rage and killed him.

Which is, of course, likely to be demolished by a competent prosecution mentioning the little fact that he robbed the guy afterwards.  And rightfully so.

You have to be really stupid to equate wanting every accused to be given a fair trail with wanting people who kill minorities to get off free.

PiatoR, it may not be that easily demolished. Church is a homeless vagrant. After he had killed someone is it really absurd for him to rob him too? It certainly shows that he didn’t feel much remorse afterwords, so that will hurt him. But, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that the murder was premeditated.

True, maybe not the premeditated bit, but having enough sense to steal “the man’s wallet, cell phone and other personal items” speaks volumes about just how much of a “panic” he was in.

Penn: What Piator said.

Dana: I did, however, note that you were very concerned that Jason Ng didn’t get every bit of possible care while in detention for an immigration violation, yet are seemingly dismissive of a defendant’s right to use a particular defense that is legal but which you find repugnant.  I find those two positions somewhat contradictory.

Really? You see no difference between an innocent man jailed for no crime beyond having missed an item of mail, and a man who murdered his benefactor? And you see my position of not wanting people to be left to die untreated of spinal cancer while in jail “contradicts” my position of not wanting murderers to be allowed to claim “he needed killin’” as a defense? I guess someone would think that who thinks a satisfactory resolution to the “problem” of women being denied access to contraception, safe legal abortion, free healthcare, paid maternity leave, and guaranteed child support, is to jail women for life for having illegal abortions: someone crazier that a bug in a bugcrazy factory, that is.