Replies

But the prosecution will have to establish motive and the defense will have to speak of Roeder's frame of mind.

Actually AG, the prosecution does not have to establish motive. All they need to show is that Roeder was the perpetrator and present some evidence that it was a deliberate act.

If a defense of insanity or "defense of others" is offered, then the state of mind of the perpetrator will come into play. If the judge refuses to allow the defendant to bring in evidence of his state of mind, i.e., that he was trying to stop these murders of unborn babies, then Roeder will not, IMHO, have been given a fair trial.

The judge does generally have discretion to preclude evidence where the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighs it's evidenciary value. But when it involves excluding evidence relevant to a legitimate defense in a capital case, it will be closely monitored by the reviewing courts.

Wouldn't it be ironic if evidence is excluded from his trial and the ACLU ends up filing a brief or an appeal on his behalf?

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your expertise and insights, dear brother in Christ!

If a defense of insanity or "defense of others" is offered, then the state of mind of the perpetrator will come into play. If the judge refuses to allow the defendant to bring in evidence of his state of mind, i.e., that he was trying to stop these murders of unborn babies, then Roeder will not, IMHO, have been given a fair trial.

Excellent point! And I agree it would be ironic if the ACLU were involved in the appeal should that happen.

The judge is going to be walking a tightrope on this one.

Actually AG, the prosecution does not have to establish motive. All they need to show is that Roeder was the perpetrator and present some evidence that it was a deliberate act.

I stand corrected, P-Marlowe! Thank you. Still, it seems to me the jury might want to know about motive.

If I were a juror, certainly I'd want to know "why" Mr. Roeder "did it." And would take a dim view of the prosecution's case if I thought it was trying to bottle up this information. To me, knowledge of state of mind (including reason for acting) would be essential to my decision in this matter.

Mr. Roeder is not a robot, and I would not judge him as if he were one.

P-Marlowe, you wrote: "If a defense of insanity or 'defense of others' is offered, then the state of mind of the perpetrator will come into play. If the judge refuses to allow the defendant to bring in evidence of his state of mind, i.e., that he was trying to stop these murders of unborn babies, then Roeder will not, IMHO, have been given a fair trial."

In which case the jury ought to find him "not guilty." No jury should stand for the abuse of a fellow citizen like that: A fair trial is a constitutional right.

Thank you so very much, P-Marlowe, for your informative and insightful essay/post!