Posted on 08/19/2013 11:56:09 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Mother shot 13-month-old boy in stroller for insurance money, say defense attorneys for teen charged in murder Jury selection in the trial of De'Marquise Elkins, 18, begins Monday, but his lawyers say Sherry West had 'financial interest in the death of her son,' Antonio Santiago.
By Nina Golgowski / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Sunday, August 18, 2013, 12:04 PM
Attorneys are set to pin a Georgia mother who witnessed her 13-month-old son heartlessly shot between the eyes as the real killer behind his death.
Defense attorneys say Sherry West had "financial interest in the death of her son," Antonio Santiago, after she took out a life insurance policy before his savage murder in March, according to a pretrial motion.
"Other evidence of record suggests Sherry West is mentally unstable, gave several inconsistent accounts of how the crime transpired, and had a financial interest in the death of her son in the form of an insurance policy," public defender Kevin Gough said in a court motion filed Aug. 5.
Jury selection begins Monday at the Cobb County courthouse in Marietta where 18-year-old De'Marquise Elkins faces life in prison if convicted of Antonio's murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
You bring up a valid point. This is probably just as distasteful for him as it is for those of us who have to read about it.
Sherry West had “financial interest in the death of her son,” Antonio Santiago, after she took out a life insurance policy before his savage murder
__________________________________________
Yeah so did my mother..
for all 4 of us in my family..
you could take out an insurance policy in those days after the baby was 1 year old and it was a common thing to do..
obviously nearly every mother in my town wanted us dead...
However eventhough MOST of the homes had at least one gun...
None of us died of “gun violence”
How on Earth could that be ???
What no hoodie and pants down round his knees ???
“He’s doing his duty...”
His duty? How so? Is a defense attorney’s duty to get the client off or to see that the client has a fair trial under the law? If the former, how did that come to be and where does it say so?
It’s possible the mother in some small way welcomed the tragedy, but that doesn’t mean she committed murder.
Even if true, irrelevant, since the accused chose to execute the child.
His job is to defend his client to the best of his ability. Failure to do so is a violation of an attorney’s oath before the court.
Maybe someone can explain this to me.
US attys are given pretty much free rein to LIE and CREATE a fake scenario that usually besmirches the character of the victim.
In other countries, when attys lie, they are forced to stand before the court and apologize to those they slandered.
Why can’t US attys be held liable for their lies?
A Trayvon Martin lookalike shot the child.
There was some suspicion of this at the beginning. I think the mother has a history of strange behavior and in fact I think another one of her children died or was killed under mysterious circumstances earlier. I don’t think the baby died in this most recent killing was the child of the man with whom she is currently living.
Someone here in Jacksonville shot and killed his wife and claimed that some black men did it. He even shot himself in the foot, literally, to make it look as though he had fought back. His story fell apart when his recently acquired million dollar life insurance policy on her was discovered.
There are certain things I won’t do for a client. Lying is one of them.
Why can’t US attys be held liable for their lies?
______________________
because lawyers are scum.
Jealously? Oh, OK!
But I'd think that most people would have real problems with the clients they represent.
Special place in hell for liars ,er, lawyers.
In most jurisdictions, public defenders are chosen by lot. Kevin was the unlucky man who drew the short straw.
The thing to remember is that lawyers are equivalent to ‘hired guns’ of the old west. In this case, defense lawyers have no responsibility other than to introduce sufficient dispute of their client’s guilt. If the jury fails to find guilt that is “beyond reasonable doubt”, then the charge is supposed to fail (like the Zimmerman Trial.)
So to blame the lawyers for grasping at very slim straws should be tempered by realizing that if that is all that they have then the case is probably strong. I don’t know if it is a consistent fact but to me, the more outrageous the claim, the weaker the case for the side making the claim.
I don't either, FRiend, but that is the reason I became a geologist instead of an attorney. I like being able to look myself in the eye in the mirror in the morning.
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.