Posted on 12/01/2004 12:02:18 PM PST by PjhCPA
MINNEAPOLIS - Whether he was acting in self-defense, suffering from mental illness or consumed by rage when he shot eight hunters in the Wisconsin woods, Chai Soua Vang faces an awfully difficult task in mounting a defense, legal experts say.
"His attorneys acknowledge him doing it. He admits doing it. And he admits in his confession (to) chasing down one of these guys and shooting him in the back," said Ron Meshbesher, a prominent Minneapolis defense attorney. "It'd be a miracle if he beat this rap."
Vang, 36, made his first appearance before a judge Tuesday in Hayward, Wis. He faces six charges of first-degree intentional homicide and two of attempted murder in the Nov. 21 shootings near Rice Lake, Wis.
He is being held in the Sawyer County jail in lieu of $2.5 million bail.
Vang's attorneys have not said what legal strategy they might use to defend their client, except to say they'll investigate all options.
At Tuesday's brief appearance, defense attorney Steven Kohn said his client was competent to understand the proceedings against him. That doesn't mean, Kohn said later, that attorneys have ruled out an insanity defense.
The bizarre case, which erupted after hunters confronted Vang on their land, has attracted widespread attention, and several Minnesota and Wisconsin defense attorneys said that their sense is that the defense's options in the case appear limited.
Vang's attorneys could pursue an insanity defense, a strategy based on diminished mental responsibility or - if the evidence supports it - self defense. But both options present problems.
A successful insanity defense under Wisconsin law would require jurors or the court to find the defendant suffered from "a mental disease or defect" and that he could not "tell right from wrong or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law," said Dick Lawson, a longtime defense attorney in Wausau, Wis.
Even if such a defense is offered, Lawson said, "it's a very difficult defense to sell. Juries don't buy it very often."
So far, there has been no evidence that Vang suffers from mental illness.
If attorneys employ a defense strategy of self-defense, Lawson and others said, they'll have to show that Vang believed that he was in imminent danger. That argument might be easier to make had Vang shot only one or two victims, rather than eight, attorneys said.
"The biggest problem he's got is that there are so many victims here," said Michele LaVigne, a clinical associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School and a former public defender in Madison and Eau Claire.
What makes it an even more difficult sell to jurors is that Vang told authorities that he chased some of his victims and shot them from behind.
Compounding Vang's troubles is that he told conflicting stories to authorities.
Initially, he said one of the hunters grabbed his rifle and shot at his companions. He later changed his story to say that he fired at the hunters only after they surrounded him, insulted him with racial slurs and finally, shot at him.
Although police said Vang waived his right to an attorney during the initial discussions, Butterfoss said attorneys will check to see if any of his constitutional rights were violated.
"If you can get some of the most damaging statements suppressed about his intent and chasing people down, maybe that helps a little bit," Butterfoss said. "But it doesn't exonerate him by any stretch."
Perhaps the best the defense team can do, experts say, is to work to prove that the killings weren't premeditated.
Under Wisconsin law, they can pursue a defense of "imperfect self-defense," which, if successful, could result in convictions on lesser degrees of homicide.
Even then, LaVigne and others say, convictions on second-degree intentional homicide would probably bring consecutive sentences of 20 years or more on each of the murders, or, as LaVigne put it, "a boatload of time."
There is no death penalty in Wisconsin.
- Contact Richard Meryhew at richm(at)startribune.com.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com.)
Unfortunately, that's the best we can hope for.
Shouldn't he get a bronze star or something for that? /sarcasm
ping
"Tough court battle awaits hunter"
Thats an understatement if I ever heard one.
Watch for the "Hunting Rage" defense.
"Vang's attorneys have not said what legal strategy they might use to defend their client, except to say they'll investigate all options."
UH, Didn't know it was loaded.
UH, I was showing it to them and it went off.
UH, I was cleaning it and it went off.
Hang the sob.
No death penalty in Wisconsin, too bad, Clint Eastwood made a movie about whant this guy should get, It was called " Hang em High".
Probably not; the victim was neither nekkid nor a teenager.
I think that's what the authorities were afraid, because his "court" appearance yesterday was in the basement of the jail rather across the street in the court house.
The gun made him do it.
What if the guy runs for Senate? Wouldn't that qualify him for a pile of awards?
Well, fortunately for him, there are no Swift Boat Vets to spoil his story. He just might make it all the way into the White House.
The government made him do it. You just don't realize what monsters we've created; teaching men to kill, and giving them hunting licenses to do it. (Oh, where's that kerry Senate testimony, so I can paraphrase?)
That pretty much takes it out of the realm of self-defense.
Only if he later runs for president, and trashes our military. Then he should get medals, but he should throw them over the White House fence of course. </sarcasm>
True. And we can probably back up this guy's version of events by interviewing some of the deer who were shot at by these evil hunters.
Naturally. I think we can all agree on that.
'Our client intends to sue the manufacturer of this mislabled weapon. It was only supposed to shoot deer.'
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.