Posted on 11/13/2009 9:06:08 AM PST by thefactor
Sorry for the vanity, but I think this is very interesting.
There is an article in the NY Post today about the terrorist from Ft. Hood. One sentence caught my attention:
"A 14th murder charge is being weighted because victim Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was pregnant."
Is that common practice? Does it matter how far along she was? I believe she had just found out she was pregnant so how far along could she have been? If so, are pro-life advocates all over it?
I would have linked the article itself except my computer fails to load the NY Post website in a timely fashion.
Thanks again for indulging me.
sorry, in my quote from the paper, “weighted = weighed.”
1. Here:
Sanders challenged his conviction, arguing that a law criminalizing the killing of a fetus “at every state of gestation” is unconstitutional because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Texas appellate court upheld the statute because its “principal or primary effect” is not to advance religion, finding that it has a valid secular purpose in that it “serves the State’s legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others.”
http://public.getlegal.com/articles/fetal-homicide-laws
2. YO TEXANS?!!! Does Texas does Texas have terrorism statute???
does it matter if texas has the terror statute since it will be a military court?
What the prosecution is going to want to do here, is to limit their exposure on appeal. Such an issue as contentious as this one, is likely to be rife with possible appellate implications. So, in the interest of expediency - and faster resolution for the victims and their families - they'll probably stay away from this 14th count, IMHO.
“does it matter if texas has the terror statute since it will be a military court?”
YES!!! Texas can still bring charges, especially for #14 the baby! Texas of course has the death penalty.
i have NO idea how the military courts work let alone their appeal processes. will be an interesting case. too bad they don’t have the death penalty though. that always befuddled me.
They definitely have the death penalty. Reagan reinstated it in 1984. The prosecution has already said that they will seek a sentence of death in this case.
While the military hasn't executed anyone since 1961, there's another case on final appeal for an execution approved by Bush just last year. That will be the first execution since '61. This case, barring any catastrophic mistake by the prosecution, will certainly end with an execution, IMHO.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice was modified when President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004. Article 119a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, makes it a crime for anyone "to cause the death...of a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place" regardless of whether the killer intended to kill the child. If the killer intended to kill the child, he can be prosecuted for murder under Article 118.
The law applies in this case for three reasons:
1) the act of violence was committed on federal property
2) the shooting was allegedly done by a member of the military
3) the violence could be classified as an act of terrorism.
Also, under Texas law that took effect in September 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”
Source:
Texas, if given the opportunity by the military, could only bring charges against Hasan that weren't tried in the military court. Contrary to popular belief, double jeopardize does attach to military prosecutions.
jeez, why have i been hearing they do not have the death penalty? huh. must have misheard. thanks.
There's no question that they could prosecute for the unborn murder. No question. My point is that there's no precedent, either in federal court or military court for such a prosecution, to the best of my recollection. I'm skeptical, because of the lack of precedent, and the uncertainty with respect to how it would play out at appeal, might sway prosecutors to avoid the charge altogether. Again, just an opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.