In the Dunn case an argument can be made for 1st degree murder, but even if it doesn't convince the jury, it includes lesser charges. They jury could have convicted on 2nd degree or manslaughter. Overcharging is not the reason they didn't.
In Alexander's case, like the Zimmerman case, the popular narrative of what happened that day is wrong. Alexander was not defending herself. There was no threat to her. The abusiveness of her spouse is debatable, although they clearly had a mutually abusive relationship. Marissa herself was the only one actually ever arrested and for physical abuse, in a separate case that happened after the shooting.
Her trial showed that she clearly acted out of anger. She walked out of the room and came back with a gun, said "I've got something for your ass", and fired a shot that struck the wall near his head. One might speculate she didn't mean to shoot him but what difference does that make? If she had hit him, would it have changed anything if she said she didn't mean to?
This is not overcharged.
"In retaliation for the negative press, Corey has since doubled down and is attempting to increase Alexanders prison time to 60 years."
Not true. Corey doesn't decide what sentence to persue. The charges being retried are exactly the same ones from the first trial, and the sentence is a mandatory minimum defined in the law.
What's happened is that since the first trial an appeals court in another case has ruled that these sentences must run consequtively instead of concurrently. That's how it gets to be 60 this time around. Corey had nothing to do with that.
Alexander deserves to be convicted and no doubt would be again. I do agree that 60 years or even 20 years is harsh, but that's a common result of mandatory minimum sentences. They should be done away with.
Hopefully Corey will go ahead and offer Alexander a plea deal again for something more reasonable and it doesn't go that far.
See post 37.