The trial set to begin Wednesday for a man who admitted killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers was thrown into limbo when the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the judge to reconsider his decision to keep jury selection secret.
The court ruled late Tuesday that Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert did not provide the public and media enough time to respond before he closed the proceedings and sealed the jury questionnaire in the first-degree murder case of Scott Roeder. The Kansas City, Mo., man is accused of shooting Dr. George Tiller inside a Wichita church in May.
The Supreme Court ordered Wilbert to reconsider requests from four media outlets, including The Associated Press, that wanted access. Wilbert wasn't ordered to open the proceedings but was expected to meet with a media attorney, prosecutors and defense lawyers Wednesday morning before jury selection began.
Earlier Tuesday, Wilbert allowed Roeder the chance to build a defense based on Roeder's belief that his actions were justified to save unborn children. But the judge said it remained to be seen whether the evidence would suffice to instruct jurors, after the defense rested its case, that they could consider the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.
"I am going to make every effort to try this case as a criminal, first-degree murder trial," Wilbert said. "Admittedly Mr. Roeder's beliefs may come into play and as a defendant he is entitled to present a defense."
The judge said he would rule on a witness-by-witness, question-by-question basis as necessary throughout the trial on whether to allow jurors to hear specific evidence on Roeder's beliefs about abortion.
"This is not going to be a debate about abortion," Wilbert said, adding that attorneys will have to convince him at trial that any evidence offered in that regard will have to be part of what Roeder believed on May 31 when Tiller was killed.
Roeder has "a formidable and daunting task" to present such evidence, Wilbert said.
The facts of the case are not in dispute: As Sunday morning services were starting, Roeder got up from a pew at Wichita's Reformation Lutheran Church and walked to the foyer, where Tiller and a fellow usher were chatting. He put the barrel of a .22-caliber handgun to Tiller's forehead and pulled the trigger.
Roeder, 51, has publicly admitted to reporters and the court to killing Tiller. He also faces two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers who tried to stop him from fleeing after the shooting. He has pleaded not guilty.
But what had been expected to be a straightforward trial was upended on Friday when Wilbert refused to bar Roeder's lawyers from building the defense calling for a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. The judge prohibited only a so-called necessity defense that would argue Roeder should be acquitted because the doctor's killing was necessary.
Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.
The Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women immediately condemned the judge's decision, saying it opens the door for a society that would condone vigilantism and violence against abortion providers.
Prosecutors had filed a motion Monday saying the voluntary manslaughter defense was invalid because there was no evidence Tiller posed an imminent threat at the time of the killing.
The defense argued that the prosecution misinterpreted case law, saying any rulings about evidence should be made at the time of its presentation as is typical in any other criminal trial.
"This trial is going to be on TV, but it is not a TV trial — it is a real trial," defense attorney Mark Rudy said.
30 comments:
I find it interesting how much publicity this case is getting. The controversial circumstances surrounding this case are of great interest to the public, seeing as the "pro-life, pro-choice" debate has been a hot topic for years. I think it is classic murder in the first degree because it really doesn't matter what the victim's occupation is- It is not a citizen's responsibility to "exterminate" people that they think are in the wrong. It is just another form of prejudice violence
This one is interesting. Although I agree with the man on trial in the fact that abortion is completley wrong, I do not agree with his choice to kill someone over the matter. I think that if he wanted to make a differnece, he could have done it in a much wiser way... maybe talk to the Dr. or even directly to the women wanting abortions and could have prayed about it. I just don't think that killing another person was the way to go about it.
Overall the thought that this could have been man slaughter is kind of sketchy because it was defined as an "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." normaly this would be considered as an attack against ones-self or loved ones, in which deadly force was seemingly the best way to resolve the issue. not that it actualy was the only one -as in an extreme case of life or death. And Roeder was in no danger himself. So while he may or may not have had a truly just cause in trying to "save unborn children" there were alternatives to actualy killing Tiller. So because of the information I'm givin I'm sorry to have to say that this is a case of Murder.
Roeder should go to jail for first-degree murder. Though he claims his actions were to protect the unborn children, the severity of his actions was unnecessary. If Roeder claims he was trying to save unborn children, why didn’t he try other, less harmful, ways to fight abortion first?
To be charged with first-degree murder, some thought is put into planning the crime. And, obviously, Roeder was planning on killing Tiller if he brought a gun to church.
I agree with Wilbert’s statement “this is not going to be a debate about abortion.” What Roeder did was wrong, and he should be punished just like everyone else despite his views on abortion.
Plus, just like the Organization of Women stated, if Roeder only gets off with voluntary manslaughter, wouldn’t that promote the idea of killing or hurting other abortion providers?
The fact that the first degree murder charge is up discussion is uttrly absurd. Bottom line just because he didnt agree with the Doctor performing abortions he had no right to take away a man's life. This man should face charges for first degree murder despite his religius beliefs. I mean look at it this way; the men who flew planes into the Twin Towers killing thousands did that in the name of their beliefs.
So wait a second....he pulled a gun out in CHURCH and MURDERED a guy in said church? No matter what he believes in, he is going to hell for shure. You don't kill a dude in church....that is just wrong. The least he could of done is killed him outside. The trial should be interesting to watch, though I am pretty shure the volantary manslaughter charge will be his sentance.
Abortion doctors should not have to live in fear of death; they should be given the same protection under the law as everyone else. By opening this discussion on manslaughter, they could possibly lose some of that protection.
But according to the wording of the law, manslaughter is "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."
I think that the murderer was in fact taking what he saw as the most morally correct action he could, as someone who sees abortion as murder. So basically I think the problem is in the definition of manslaughter, which leaves a lot of room for murderers to get away with a lesser punishment.
As much as they are hoping this won't turn into an Abortion Debate, I can't help but think it will.
I'm am strongly Pro-Life. Which I guess here applies to abortion and the man that was murdered. There is no doubt it was Murder and as much as I think Abortion is wrong, so were the actions of Roeder. Murder does not justify murder.
Kansas.... dear oh dear way to complicate everything! Except for Texas (hoo rah) killing someone is killing someone. Self defense gives you a better reason or if someone comes into your house at night and you tell them to freeze a good five times and they dont, thats a reason. It's all about self defense. If it's not, and you don't work for the gov. then your screwed, or at least should be. Murder is murder, give this boy life, not 5 years. "we're not in kansas anymore totto" and im glad for that.
Regardless of your stance on abortion, Dr. Tiller's murder was wrong. It is not anyone's place to take it into their own hands and kill a doctor at an abortion clinic. Roeder should be charged with murder.
Judge Wilbert should not allow Roeder to be charged with manslaughter. He has stated that he is,"going to make every effort to try this case as a criminal, first-degree murder trial." However, he is allowing Roeder's defense to build up a case, which asks for the lesser offense of manslaughter. While Roeder does have the right to defend himself, Wilbert should adhere to his previous statement and sentence Roeder to life imprisonment. If he is simply convicted of manslaughter, he will be out of jail in a mere five years. What's to say that he won't kill again? Roeder is allowed his own beliefs of anti-abortion, but that does not justify murder. If Roeder is let off with a lesser punishment, it is essentially saying that killing another individual is justifiable as long as that individual is doing something "wrong," at least in the mind of the killer. Wilbert should give Roeder what he deserves--life in prison.
I think the guy should be sentenced for a 1st degree murder instead of manslaughter. He deserves to be put to jail for life because he killed a person. It doesnt matter if that person is in the wrong. Its their choice to do what they want and if they want to be into abortion then so be it. That doesnt mean you can go kill them. He is just another person like all of us and he was murdered. So the proper sentence for the murderer should be 1st degree murder.
First of all, murder for any reason should not be taken lightly whether or not the murder committed is considered reasonable or unreasonable. Although Roeder believes that Dr. Tiller's actions of killing innocent babies should not go unpunished, it does not give him the right to take his life. If Roeder wants to stand up for his beliefs, I think there are wiser ways of doing it. Roeder should face the charges of first degree murder.
"Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as 'an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.'"
The defense must prove that Roeder's actions were based upon his beliefs rather than ulterior motives in order for him to be sentenced with voluntary manslaughter. Personally I believe that Roeder committed 1st-degree murder because he had premeditated the murder to the extent of bringing a gun to church in order to kill Dr.Tiller whom he knew would be in attendance.
I think that Roeder should go to jail for first-degree murder. It is really inappropriate and illogical that they are even arguing on whether this act was manslaughter. The interpretations of the words used in the voluntary manslaughter law are highly subjective. Strict and narrower interpretation will not allow him to be sentenced under voluntary manslaughter. Just because he did not agree with Tiller’s beliefs or views it doesn’t mean that he had the right to kill him. Roeder could have used other ways to save unborn babies lives. He could have protested, petitioned, or found other ways to stop women from getting abortions. Killing a doctor is completely senseless. If Roeder does not go to jail for lifetime, then doctors who perform abortions will lose their protection. We live in a civilized world and have to follow law and order. If people start killing each other because they do not have similar religion or beliefs, then there would be anarchy. Vigilantism is not an acceptable behavior in a civilized world. Just because people don’t have the same beliefs as you it doesn’t mean that you kill them.
I was hesitant to comment about this article because it deals with abortion. Roeder, however, has proved to be not so shy. His tactics to defend his beliefs crossed the line and anyone that crazy deserves a life sentence. It's plain murder, there is no avoiding it. I dont want to get into abortion and whether it is right or wrong; it hardly needs to be part of this case at all in my opinion. But I will admit for arguments sake that I am pro-choice for several reasons I dont need to name. Does that mean I have the right to shoot a bullet through Anabels head? Mmm probably not. And I know Anabel is sane enough to restrain from putting one through mine, or I hope so anyway. Roeder has no more right than anyone to eliminate someone because they have different beliefs.
This is ridiculous, this guy shouls be tried and convicted of murder. It doesn't matter what Kansas law states he killed the man without actual cause. The defense is trying to skew the law to benefit themselves. The man killed the guy to make a point and the lawyers should make their point in killing this guy. He worked outside the parameters of the law and should be punished for it. this is retarted this shouldn't even be an issue.
Though I, personally, am completely horrified at the act of abortion, whether late term or not; I still do not condone the killing of another. Reader went about making a change for his cause in a completely wrong way. He is fighting against the act of murdering unborn babies yet he murdered someone himself. You can not eliminate one evil with another evil. Even though Reader commited said murder in the name of his beliefs doesn't mean that his crime is atoned for. This act puts him on the same level that he saw the Doctor to be on.
Clearly of course in my opinion it is 1st degree murder,this Roeder makes me mad even if he is standing up for what he believes in,including to that Tiller also makes me upset for taking innocent lives because their mothers decide they dont want them,or for any "good" reason they dont want the baby anymore.So anyways,yes, Roeder shouldnt have killed a man jus because he takes away lives that is not for him to decide,Tiller will have what comes to him later on for doing that act cruel act.In conclusion Roeder should of just done it in a smarter way instead of killing especially not in a church,like he should of confronted Tiller,but then again he was probably way to angry to even look him in the face.This story could go on either side,going for a man that takes innocent lives or a man that kills a man for taking those innocent lives.
First off, thank you for the break from Obama and Haiti.
Now to this article...
The fact that there is any hesitation on whether this is murder or manslaughter is absurd. Victim's occupation aside, murder is murder; a pig is still a pig no matter it's adornments. It is not Roeder's "divine mission" to exterminate people based on his personal beliefs and it's amazing that people try to bend the wording of laws to make his actions seem acceptable. What's the point in a legal system at all if we're just going to sit here and pick at it until it's irrelevant?
This whole trial is becoming another one of the "TV trials," whether Mark Rudy says it is or not. The whole case has been pricked and poked at by the press. This case should be handled like every other murder case; A man murdered another being for doing something against his belief and now he has to pay the consequences. The whole bringing up of a possible voluntary manslaughter is just rediculous and absurd behavior because the case got popular. I believe, had the case not gone to the public, this case would have been solved and the murderer in jail.
I feel that what Roeder did was very much a crime. It shouldn't matter what your views on abortion are, the fact is the man killed another guy. It's not like Roeder's life was in danger and the only other way Roeder could have stayed alive was to kill the Tiller. When Roeder was thinking about trying to face this problem with his own views, he went to the most extreme way of facing this by killing the guy. I feel that he could have faced this situation with something other than murder.
It's fascinating how the reason this has been made widely public is because the Judge "did not provide the public and media enough time to respond before he closed the proceedings and sealed the jury questionnaire."
The facts are clear, as the article says. Roeder admitted to killing the doctor, and so the case should be cut and dry; Roeder is guilty of first degree murder. But the judge's decision to let the defense build a case for voluntary manslaughter is valid. Although I personally view the voluntary manslaughter charge grossly incorrect, the judge has a right to let the defense present the one argument they appear to have.
It isn't a question of whether or not Roeder killed the man. That much is obvious. And the case for voluntary manslaughter, especially in Kansas where the law specifies the killer needs an honest justification, seems far-fetched. But as someone trying to view this case from a legal, not necessarily judgmental standpoint, I think Roeder's defense should be heard. The defense has a right to be heard; a trial would not be fair if only the prosecutor got to speak. The judge is in the right for allowing the defense's case.
Now this case has reached national attention and will be televised. The jury is supposed to remain impartial until hearing actual testimony in the courtroom, but with the media garnering access and putting their spin on the process, it's going to be difficult for this trial to be fair. Considering the abortion dilemma has been brought into the situation, any arguments made by either side in this case will cause some sort of public controversy.
In my opinion, that's the biggest shame of all in this case. Pro-life jurors may worry about convicting for first degree murder, and pro-choice jurors may worry about agreeing with the voluntary manslaughter. Juries should not be compromised by things of this nature.
The attention this situation has received has led to one thing: Roeder may not necessarily get his promised fair trial.
If a person wants to make a difference then they can exercise their rights granted to them by the bill of rights. Taking another persons life just because you don't agree with their profession is wrong on all accounts. He knowingly brought a gun into church, walked up to the man, and shot him. How is that not murder? The law states that there must be "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." Tiller was not attacking him, nor was he attacking anyone else. I really don't think that chatting with a fellow usher at church is an example of a circumstance that justified deadly force.
Roeder should be charged with murder. regardless of his views on abortion he does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
The crime this man has committed is definitely interesting. It brings up not one but, two moral arguments; abortion and the justification of murder. No matter the crime of a person, they still don't deserve to be mercilessly killed. If the murderer thinks that wiping out all abortion performing doctors will end abortion, he's seriously mistaken. Getting to the bottom of this issue can't involve any kind of mindless violence or it won't ever be solved.
Okay Seriously that guy should be charged with first degree murder. Just because you have certain religious beliefs it doesn't give you the right to kill somebody that was pretty much doing their job. I agree with Brittany in that he pretty much committed the same type of crime as a terrorist.
I agree, this is completely crazy! No matter what your view on the "pro-life, pro-choice" debate is, a citizen has no right to murder another citizen, point blank and in a church on top of that. I find it very interesting and mind blowing that anyone would actually think that there is a possible argument to if this guy is guilty of murder or manslaughter. Think of it this way, if everyone had the right to exterminate people with different opinions and ideas there would be one single soul left on this earth.
Wow this guy is a complete and total hypocrite. He doesn't believe it is ok to abort an unborn child, but he does believe it ok to murder a doctor. This makes no sense at all and he should go to jail immediately. Besides, it is in no way his place to decide whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong.He committed a murder and he should be punished accordingly.
I don't think that the doctor having performed abortions justifies his death. I think the murderer should be sentenced as harshly as possible. This was not voluntary manslaughter, it was prejudiced murder. you cant kill someone simply because you don't like their beliefs or what they do. i find it offensive that someone would do this sort of thing, people have a right to express their opinion. It takes someone with no morals to not respect that. I hope he gets sentenced for life or the death penalty.
Post a Comment