The Seattle Post-Intelligencer covers a troubling case: A 16-year-old girl pled guilty to "manslaughter, for killing a 49-year-old man who'd hired her for sex," under circumstances that seem like they might well amount to self-defense:
In what [the] ex-wife [of victim Francisco Pena] described as "just one mistake" in an otherwise good life, the recently divorced father of two picked the girl up at a supermarket in Burien and, after buying a bottle of vodka and Crown Royal, brought her back to his home for "a date."
Though exactly what happened the evening of April 5 remains a mystery, court documents and the girl's statements indicate that the two drank, then fought over whether she would be allowed to leave Pena's house. He wouldn't let her go until they'd had sex, the girl told police, so she stabbed him in the chest with a steak knife....
The young woman will serve 2 to 2 ½ years at a juvenile detention facility for first-degree manslaughter, Superior Court Judge LeRoy McCullough ruled Tuesday. If the case had gone to trial she faced a sentence of 10 years ....
Attorneys on both sides of the case acknowledged that the girl's alcohol consumption the night Pena was killed might have led to an acquittal at trial. Cromwell said her client could not recall the incident, her memory lost to the liquor-fueled haze of the evening....
Cara at The Curvature is outraged, on the very plausible grounds that the girl was just acting in self-defense. It's certainly permissible to use deadly force to defend against an attempted rape, or against kidnapping, so "[h]e wouldn't let her go until they'd had sex" certainly sounds like it would qualify as a predicate for lethal self-defense. This seems particularly supported by prosecutors' (paraphrased) statement that "emerging information about what could have happened — including the possibility that the victim had attacked or threatened the girl — factored into the decision for the juvenile plea deal." So if this was self-defense, why push the girl to plead to a crime that she therefore wouldn't have committed?
The trouble is that it's of course impossible to tell from the news accounts — at least the ones I've seen — whether this was self-defense, or even whether there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense (the rule in Washington and lots of other states). If the girl really "could not recall the incident," then it's hard to tell how much to credit her account that "[Pena] wouldn't let her go until they'd had sex." She also isn't likely to be the most credible witness: She apparently has a history of "convictions for assault, theft, malicious mischief and stealing a car," and while even convicted criminals have a right to defend themselves, jurors may naturally be skeptical of their claims (especially when some of the crimes, such as theft, are evidence of dishonesty).
Also, it's not completely clear what her (paraphrased) statement that "He wouldn't let her go until they'd had sex" means. If it means that he was essentially trying to rape her by physically restraining her, or credibly threatening her with violence, and that she killed him to prevent or interrupt the rape, then that would be self-defense (if her story is believed). But if it means that he did rape her, and then let her go, and she killed him because of what he had done to her, then that would indeed be voluntary manslaughter: An intentional homicide that wasn't justified by the need to defend against a crime (since the crime was over), but that is a lesser crime than murder because of the provocation created by the just-completed crime. It may well be that the facts are clearer than the somewhat ambiguous statement; but the press accounts I saw did not make those facts clear.
So this, I think, helps show the inevitable problems that will sometimes arise even with a law of self-defense that is at bottom fairly sound. The problem is often not in the law, but in figuring out the facts, and in predicting how a jury will react to the contested claim of facts (especially when the defendant was drunk, or when the defendant's criminal record makes the defendant a less than normally credible witness). And in such a situation, it's not uncommon for the defense and the prosecution to reach a plea agreement to avoid the inevitable uncertainties of trial.
[Arkady: Good point; I didn't intend the contrary, but I now realize that my post was naturally read as doing so. I've revised the post slightly. -EV]
Kidnapping, too.
I'm not a lawyer, however, as a juror I doubt I would have ever known about the girl's history, especially as she would be the defendent in a jury trial. I am confused about your statement that "jurors may naturally be skeptical of their claims".
Isn't her history only a mitigating factor that the judge should consider during sentencing?
Defendants often face that bind; they want to testify about their side of the story, but they don't want the jury to find out about their extensive criminal record (which would generally be inadmissible if the defendant chose not to testify). It's a choice the defendant and her lawyer must ultimately make, whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks.
It sounds like the girl's statement to the police was more detailed than she currently is able to remember. Those statements wouldn't be admissible by her without taking the stand, unless she could squeeze it in to some hearsay exception. So, if she doesn't take the stand, you're left with just the dead guy and her bloody fingerprints, etc.
Because that's what prosecutors (all too often) do, get convictions however they have to. I've often seen that prosecutors have this belief that every situation can be resolved without violence just by calling the police. Every single one of those prosecutors, always went armed....always.
As an aside, if the guy is dead and she has no memory, it would at first blush mean that the whole "wouldn't let her go until they had sex" was speculation on the part of someone. However, I have counter-speculation. The girl made that statement, that night while blotto drunk. Later, she couldn't remember making the statement, or anything about that night.
If your claim is about how "prostitution [works] in the real world," then I don't see what the rest of the comment tells us about that.
another aside. Those who steal, don't necessarily lie. I think there are even a few jurisdictions where simple theft is not considered a crime of dishonesty, but anything involving lying, false report, forgery, fraud etc. is.
I agree with the precept "better be judged by 12 than carried by 6." But to live by that concept, you have to be prepared for the first part, the judging by 12.
Even if she had agreed to have sex with him before she went to his place she is entitled to change her mind. It is illegal to rape a prostitute, and she is as entitled to depend herself as any other rape victim.
If a criminal defendant testifies then, in general, the prosecution can use her criminal record to challenge her credibility.
Her criminal history would be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
Assuming for argument that the girl is telling the truth, "rapist gets shot" is a better outcome than "prostitute gets raped".
Even in some libertarian fantasy world where 16 year old girls can legally contract for sex, the appropriate response to a prostitute wishing to leave your house would be some kind of breach of contract litigation, not physical coercion, right?
-m@
1) Since she was a juvenile, many states would not allow her juvenile record to come into evidence, even if a similar adult record would.
2) Sounds like a typical plea bargain in the sense that the prosecutor didn't want to risk an acquittal and she didn't want to risk 10 years (and perhaps an adult record, I am not sure based on the article).
Frankly, I suspect that more than one truly innocent person is in prison today because they made this kind of calculation.
I don't think so. He brought her home to have sex (working assumption). She changed her mind. He won't let her leave. That's kidnapping, isn't it? If he's only holding her until he can summon the police for some reason, that's one thing. If he's planning to keep her there until she puts out, and is forcibly restraining her from leaving, I think she's got grounds for using force--even lethal force--to escape. Especially given that forcibly preventing her from leaving isn't far from forcibly compelling performance--which would be rape, and perfectly justifiable reason to use lethal force in self-defense.
The prosecutors comments about "emerging information" might have meant "emerging fears in contemplation of the trial date."
"If the only thing she was 'defending' against was having to stay around long enought to perform as promised, aren't we trivializing the notion?" You're the one trivializing rape and kidnapping, these are not accepted methods of enforcing promises.
Actually, you can't block access to a juvie record if it's relevent to a defense. There's an Alaska case that went up to the US Supreme Court that determined this. State v. ____ B? Brandon B. Dave B.? Hell, I wont' lie, I'm not sure about the B.
I think a possible solution would be to impose an upper limit on the sentence that could be imposed after a guilty verdict that was some multiple (not that high) of the sentence offered as the lowest plea bargain. this would work to increase the incentive of a person in a situation like this, with a sympathetic case, to go to trial. it would also help to avoid the spectacle of the criminal justice system imposing a sentence that has more to do with tactical concerns than the guilt or innocence of the accused.
I am aware that the defense can, under some circumstances, use juvenile records. However, in this case, it is the prosecution who would want to use the records--and I am unaware of any case that makes this a two-way street.
"I'm not going to have sex with you."
"Oh, yes you are!"
"No, I'm not, and I'll make sure of it!"--then stabbing.
Just not clear, and unfortunately the other witness is dead. My guess is that her statements and evidence at the scene didn't jibe, and that's why the case was filed in the first place.
I don't see how a duty to retreat would be relevant in this case. You only have to retreat if you can do so safely. One of the offenses she is defending herself against is kidnapping. In order to be kidnapped, she has to be unable to leave, hence satisfying any duty to retreat.
Duh. You're right.
If the prosecutor believes the accused is guilty, it certainly seems like a huge abrogation of his duties to act with her best interests in mind. On the other hand if he believes she is innocent, it boggles the mind that he would press forward with charges or even a plea bargain.
Joshua,
This is the DA talking. He's saying that HE thinks its better for the girl to be locked up than for him to look at the case and decide on it's merits whether the case should go forward. As I mentioned in responding to Eugene's question earlier, too many prosecutors do this, they will do whatever they have to do, and tell themselves whatever they have to tell themselves, in order to avoid dismissing cases once they are filed. In my mind, it's truly cowardly in cases like this where it seems the DA prosecuted largely to keep from having to go to the family of the "victim" and tell them that the "victim" was a piece of shit who got what he deserved. I'm not saying that's the case...but if the DA believes the woman acted in self-defense, as the quote by Joshua seems to indicate, then I can't think of another reason for not dismissing it.
Here's a different version of events. The girl gave conflicting stories, stabbed him in his garage, and stole his wallet and laptop computer.
Based on this story, and the fact she now can't remember anything, I can see why the girl took a plea.
I don't think you and I are necessarily disagreeing.
Lenient plea bargains are always appealing to prosecutors when the defendant has sympathetic traits and the defense can demonize the victim. Sometimes this means two equally culpable offenders will end up with very different punishments because one is "cuddly" and the other is not. Justice may be blind jurors hardly ever are.
There have been a number of studies examining whether an offender's race affects the severity of his punishment. I believe the consensus is that in the contemporary USA it does not. Does anyone know of similar studies examining the impact of an offender's age and/or sex? [I understand that studies of an age effect may be complicated by separate juvenile and adult CJSs.]
I'm more interested in why the girl and her defense counsel took the plea deal than in why the DA offered it. None of the linked articles seem to say one way or the other, but for all we know they might agree with the DA 100% on the specific point that I quoted. If this is the case, then again it's entirely understandable that the defendant would be willing to plea-bargain.
On the other hand, this raises the question of whether the DA's quote was merely for public consumption, or whether he had actually raised this point during plea negotiations to try to frighten the girl into agreeing. It's one thing to tell a defendant s/he's better off taking a plea deal than going to trial and risking conviction; another thing altogether to tell the defendant s/he's better off taking the same plea deal than being acquitted. That sounds almost like a threat of extrajudicial reprisal.
Here's the url
http://www.komonews.com/news/17760689.html
i don't see this as a quote from the prosecutor... as i read the PI article. it seems more like a paraphrase, correct?
iow, a reporter putting words in somebody else's mouth.
the facts are the young girl has a long criminal history, and she says she can't remember what happened.
i see no reason to believe the REASON the prosecutor went forward with charging/plea deal was "the possibility that she might be acquitted and released to head back to the streets without treatment for her problems with drugs, alcohol and prostitution."
iow, just because the prosecutor might have said something (apparently paraphrased) as above, it doesn't follow that this was his reason to press charges/not believe the self-defense claim, or ignore the self-defense claim.
it could be that he was merely stating an obvious consequence of acquittal.
I do know that if you kill in self defense in Washington and a "reasonable person" would have done likewise then you must be reimbursed for your expenses, so I always used the expensive ammo in my carry gun.
Maybe that wasn't his reason for going forward, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have brought it up as part of his "sales pitch" to the defendant during plea bargaining.
whit (again): it could be that he was merely stating an obvious consequence of acquittal.
But if the prosecutor's statement is so obvious, why would he bother making it at all? That would be like telling a reporter that water is wet, or that the sky is blue. Unless, of course, the statement was meant try to justify to the citizens who pay his salary what is, at least on the face of it, an otherwise patently unjust legal outcome.
She also did not contact the police afterwards, even though she talked to them a few minutes afterwards when a neighbor contacted the police about her causing a disturbance. And the police did not discover the body until three days after he had been killed.
On the first:
Ok. IANAL, but here are my thoughts after reading this (and this might weigh in on how a jury might react):
1) Girl has history of assault convictions and involvement in prostitution. This is important.
2) Girl is hired as a prostitute brought back to the hotel room, given alcohol to drink, etc. She decides evidently to back out. Unclear why, and evidently she can't remember the details.
this doesn't sound very credible relating to "I killed him so he wouldn't rape me." However, this might reach into reasonable doubt absent other circumstances. Depending on how she acted after the killing, etc, this might either lend credibility or it might remove all reasonable doubt in my mind.
On the second:
I think there is a reasonable question of whether this is the appropriate use of the criminal justice system, however, there are sound reasons to believe that this may be in the interest of everyone. We don't really know why the girl struck the deal so in my mind, I would prefer to try to see everyone in a positive light rather than a negative one. On the whole, locking this girl up is probably in the public interest because she is otherwise never going to get any help for her problems (given that she doesn't stay home long enough to get it).
The negative light would be an uncaring teenager who runs away from home, engages in alcohol and drug abuse, engages in prostitution, etc. and doesn't really care. She is then bullied into confessing to a crime that she didn't really commit by an overzealous DA. Is that plausible? Sure.
However, the other possibility is that the DA's office made an offer with her counsel there, and that she chose to accept the offer as a way of getting help she seriously needed. Granted I would have a problem with the routine use of the criminal justice system to force people to get such help in violation of their civil rights, but if this was done properly I guess I don't have a problem with it. I guess given the choice of two equally plausible scenarios, I would prefer to believe the one where people acted well.
I agree that prosecuters should not prosecute in cases of obvious or even likely self defense, but from reading both stories it looks like the prosecuters reasonably thought she had killed him in order to take his stuff, because she was drunk/angry with him or some combination of these factors.
Anyways, if you kill someone in self defense it is probably a good idea not to take there wallet since it makes you look really guilty.
You would also reach the question of whether, even if underage prostitution is an inherently dangerous felony, the child prostitute is defined as the victim.
Washington enumerates the felonies that trigger felony murder: "first degree burglary or first or second degree robbery, rape, arson, or kidnapping." Prostitution does not appear on the list. If you are doing one of these things and someone dies, you can be charged with first-degree murder, even if you didn't meet the normal mens rea requirements.
1. Changed stories several times
2. Made effort to hide the body
3. Returned after the killing to steal items
4. Never called police
5. Made up details like falsely claiming the guy had a knife
Put that together with her violent criminal history and what appears to be a rage problem, and I think she did it either out of anger or greed.
When is self-defence not an affirmative defence?
However prosecutors are ethically forbidden from bringing charges where they do not believe they can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence in cases of obvious self-defence, they shouldn't prosecute.
Also after reading the Komo News story (Nunzio's link), I think that there is very little reason to believe that there was any self-defence motive.
you are kidding me right?
just because it's obvious doesn't mean he wouldn't make it. how many quotes (and remember, this isn't even a quote. it's a paraphrase) do you read in news/crime stories that are obvious.
stop trying to assume nefarious intent.
in what universe is this a "patently unjust legal outcome?"
for pete's sake, look at the case facts.
the case facts, what little we have from the article (especially the stuff about taking his laptop, not reporting it, etc.) make a good case for (at a minimum) manslaughter.
it very well MAY be self-defense, but it's doesn't appear to be obviously enough a self-defense such that the prosecutors shouldn't attempt a plea deal. she doesn't remember anything, she stole the guys laptop, she never called police, etc. etc.
i work with WA prosecutors all the time. i have been involved in NUMEROUS cases of self defense, and i see all kinds of cases get nolle'd because they were obviously self-defense.
i had one case of (what I thought was arguably self-defense) not long ago. brought the guy back to the precinct, read him his rights, he gave a very detailed statement, and the prosecutor did the right thing - didn't charge him because it appeared to be self -defense.
this case aint one of them.
In this instance, I think it clear that no decision could be made - re: guilt of the defendant - based on the facts as presented in the 2 news articles. I'd say the prosecutors at least thought she was guilty of something - like manslaughter - and that her attorneys felt the same way, since the lawyers both sanctioned the bargain.
So, all in all, perhaps an imperfect solution but acceptable.
what police refer to as a "misdemeanor homicide"
With a victim who can be demonized, the defense usually doesn't have to lay it on too thick (although getting your best facts in front of the jury over and over without being too abusive does take hard work). He is a 49-year old family man who picks up teen-age girls for sex; a jury will find that very creepy, and should IMHO. To get them to acquit if the facts don't support it, they will probably have to feel some sympathy for her; that may be a difficult proposition.
I don't know about sentencing studies, but I agree that they could be interesting. In the death penalty context, there is an interesting study that correlates death sentences and the race of the victim (but some have accused the author (Baldus) of data mining and I don't know enough statistics to be able to evaluate.
Anecdotally, young offenders tend to do a bit better on sentencing because they tend to have less substantial records and they often seem better candidates for rehabilitation; even if criminal histories are similar, it is much easier to argue that a 20 year old will be able to re-orient his life than a 45 year old. Women's sentences will be affected by their role as primary caregiver to children; even without that factor, I suspect that they tend to do better in sentencing.
I think that is the problem with the system as it stands.
The #1 concern is "can I win?" Not did they do it. The question changes from: "who did it" to "who can I convict?".
Vinnie, that's entirely too cynical a judgment of the entire system. Sure, there are a few prosecutors out there more concerned with "who can I convict" rather than "who did it," but most are quite decent folks trying their best to accomplish justice in an imperfect world. I've heard my share of first-hand reports of such attitudes among a few prosecutors and a few cops, but those are the exception, not the rule.
Further, as lawyers, we're not supposed to be going by our own personal beliefs, but by the law and by an objective, professional evaluation of the evidence available. There are times when it's appropriate to exercise one's discretion and decline to prosecute someone the evidence is pointing to, but those should be fairly infrequent. Most of the time, your "gut" really shouldn't come into play in making these decisions. You look at the evidence, present it to the judge or jury, and let them make the decision; you each stick to your own roles in the system.
I'm not assuming nefarious intent here - merely career self-preservation. I presume that this prosecutor is either an elected official, or appointed by one. This means he keeps his job by remaining in the good graces of the voters/taxpayers of his jurisdiction.
Even if the prosecutor acted entirely correctly under the law and in good faith in this case, that won't necessarily be apparent to the voting/taxpaying public. If all they see, or at least care about, is an end result that looks to them like a gross miscarriage of justice, they will get angry. And the last thing you want as a public official is to have voters/taxpayers angry at you. So, regardless of the merits, the prosecutor had no choice but to spin the plea deal in the best possible way for himself and his employer.
How come The Man doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense?
What about the fifth? You can't not self-incriminate if it was self-defense? If she never said anything to the cops and didn't take the stand, they could presume she was guilty murder unless she proved it was self-defense, which she can't without taking the stand?
She could very well not take the stand. And the prosecuters would point out that her fingerprints were on the weapon, police found her near tbe crime scene on the night of the killing with a bunch of cash on her, she never contacted the police about the stabbing, and that the guys laptop and wallet were missing. And they would not know that he got her drunk since the only reason they think that is that she told them so, but they would know she had convictions for assault and theft and the dead guy did not have any convictions.
Without her talking it sounds like murder to me.
Sometimes we have to lie in the bed that we make.
Pat,
The problem isn't prosecutors that intentionally seek out the innocent to convict. I agree with you that those people exist, but they're rare. The problem is cognitive dissonance. For far too many prosecutors and police, once they have settled on someone, and especially once they have done work trying to convince people the defendant is guilty (Grand Jury or a bail review), then nothing will change their mind. Look at the number of cases where someone was convicted and DNA later showed they weren't the perpetrator. Almost always the first reaction is that the defendant must have been aiding and abetting the actual killer whose DNA was found. Even when they've been arguing for 20 years that the defendant acted alone and the evidence shows only one person committed the crime...even when there is no logical connection between the DNA match and the defendant.
Would you say the system is working if a non-guilty person can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt who wouldn't otherwise if they took the stand?
Yes. If a non-guilty person refuses to defend themselves in court and then they are convicted the system is working fine. The system can not force defendents to make wise decisions and prosecuters are not mind readers and can only work with the evidence they know about. If the defence withholds evidence showing they are not guilty how in the world is any system to blame for that.
This case is a bad one to use as an example of this problem because there is no reasonable doubt that the person committed a homicide and it sounds like the prosecuters tried their best to figure out what happened. The only question is whether it was a legal homicide. The system should convict a person who commits a homicide, takes rhe persons stuff, tampers with evidence, does not report the homicide to the police, and then refuses to provide a convincing explanation why this was legally ok.
She didn't call the police because she was being a prostitute, and the police arrest prostitutes? She took his stuff because she is a thief? She tampered with evidence because she is not too bright, but bright enough to know the cops might take the situation the wrong way?
That last part about "refusing to provide a convincing explanation why this was legally ok" is being guilty until proven innocent. She is guilty of stabbing the guy in the chest, which isn't necessarily a crime. It is presumed a crime until she proves otherwise. I don't agree with that.
That last part about "refusing to provide a convincing explanation why this was legally ok" is being guilty until proven innocent.
</blockquote>
If there is convincing evidence that someone committed a crime and they refuse to provide any defense then that is not them being guilty until proven innocent. That is them being presuemd innocent and the prosecuters having an easy time proving them guilty because the defense is not trying.
She had the chance to take this before a jury and tell them her side of the sroty and she chose not to. That is not the systmes fault.
I'm not saying the defense should not try. In my ideal world, the prosecution could lay all the facts on the table and the defense could show that all the facts to not add up to beyond a reasonable doubt without adding any new facts of his own.
The facts should add up to beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of any additional testimony that could be given by the young woman. Why would the same facts (presented by the prosecution) add up to beyond a reasonable doubt in one instance but not the other? Logically, they shouldn't. They are the same facts.
I guess that is too much to ask. Jurors are human and not robots and it would naturally be easier to believe reasonable doubt if the defense presented an actual plausible scenerio that could have happened within the prosecution's facts that adds up to self-defense.
Some things are not crimes based solely on objective facts and prosecuters, juries, and judges have to make logical inferences. Motive and mental state are key for determining if many things are crimes and these can not be proven objectively.
This case is a perfect example of that. Killing someone may or may not be a crime. Why they killed the person determines if it is a crime. No one else witnessed the killing or the events right before it so the police and prosecuter have to piece together what happened from the available facts.
The fact that she took his stuff after she killed him makes it look like that was the reason she killed him since normally people who kill in self defense 1. do not take the persons stuff 2. do not return to the scene hours later to tamper with evidence and 3. contact the police. The logical inference a person who is only presented with this evidence will make is that she committed murder because whe killed him with the intent to rob him. Throw in more evidence of her testimony and it is possible that she killed him in self defense and then acted stupidly, but that is up to her to do.
The courts should presume innonece, but they should not give the defendent the benefit of the doubt each time there are no witnesses to the crime.
Not even the benefit if the reasonable doubt?
If the prosecuters have reasonable doubt then they should drop the charges. That is why we distinguish between any doubt and reasonable doubt.
If not, GUILTY!
No, if not then they should prosecute.
I am really confused as to what the problem you have with all this because I assumed at first you were arguing in good faith, but your last few comments are causing me to doubt that.
It is the prosecutions job to determine whether or not they think that a person committed a crime and if they can prove this to a jury. If a defendant can provide testimony or evidence that this is not the case that the prosecution does not know about, then it is their job to do that. Prosecutors are not omniscient and defendants sometimes lie so prosecutors have to use their judgment based on the facts before them to come to most reasonable conclusion and if there is a trial present that to the jury.