Posted on 01/29/2010 8:25:08 AM PST by OR Patriot
Scott Roeder will take the witness stand to testify on his own behalf, attorney Steve Osburn told The Associated Press in the wake of a heated hearing about which defense evidence jurors will be allowed to hear.
Roeder will be allowed to testify about his personally held beliefs, the judge said, not about medical procedures of which he has no knowledge or expertise.
"He is not going to be able to get up there and just blurb out what he wants to say," {District Judge Warren}Wilbert said.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
The judge also barred Roeder from presenting as evidence the indictment against the abortion doctor for not obtaining second opinions about the medical necessity of many abortions.
WE WILL GIVE TERROR SUSPECTS EVERY RIGHT POSSIBLE WHILE BARRING THIS CITIZEN'S BASIC RIGHTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE COURT POLITICALLY CORRECT
I hope Roeder's attorney is already preparing an appeal.
The judge withdrew the lesser charges yesterday. The jury can only find Roeder guilty/not guilty on 1st degree murder now.
Anyone know anything about this judge?
Actually, making lemonade out of lemons, Roeder’s best defense is not to appear in any way dogmatic, but to testify from an unexpected tangent, which will throw the prosecution off guard, and give him a better chance with the jury.
Since the judge has opened the door wide for him to talk about his beliefs, then he should run with that, expressing beliefs that will attract the attention and interest of the jurors.
For instance, he could imply that, knowingly or not, the abortion doctor was making human sacrifices to ancient, demonic pagan gods. This is based solely on what he was doing, not any avowed participation in a cult, or expressed beliefs of the abortionist, but solely by his actions. It also cannot be rebutted.
And such sacrifices are intended for some cosmic purpose of evil.
Just a thought. I’m sure others could easily come up with some tangential arguments
The word is “blurt” not “blurb.”
Anyway, hearings to determine what evidence can be presented are common in both civil and criminal cases. Although I personally believe that withholding evidence from a jury can cause a bad decision, it looks like what this defendant will testify about (and what he can’t testify about) is reasonable.
The defendant is NOT permitted to discuss the procedures practiced by this charming “physician.” That is, he’s not allowed to tell the jury WHY he did it. Sounds like a REEEEELY fair trial to me! “Just shut up and plead guilty.” Of course if he were a TERRORIST, nothing would be off limits! Poor guy should have claimed to be a Muslim.
"Pro-life acitivist Randall Terry, well-known to Wichitans for organizing the 1991 Summer of Mercy protests, held a press conference outside of the Sedgwick County Courthouse on Thursday. Terry argued that abortion is the reason for the trial of Scott Roeder and that the jury in his trial should be allowed to consider voluntary manslaughter during their deliberations" --from The Wichita Eagle. (Click on video to view.) I don’t pity the abortionist, but the defendent has admitted to the crime and it sounded calculated, not spur of the moment while an abortion was being performed. He is likely going to prison where he should be. This is not how we do things in this country.
The Defense should call an expert witness to discuss the procedures...perhaps Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
The guy goes into a church and murders a doctor in cold blood.
Guilty of murder in the first.
You can email him via the link, your concerns.
More from blog info link
The most interesting thing about Wilbert is that he was reprimanded in 2006 for a sexual harassment complaint filed by a court employee. This is an oddball case. The judge was not only reprimanded, the cease-and-desist order was made public.
It’s a stretch to call George Tiller a doctor. Doctors save lives which is not what Tiller did. George Tiller was a provider of illegal late-term abortions.
Just heard on the radio.
FOX had a scroll that said the jury found him guilty of first degree murder.
Yep.
Guilty - First Degree Murder.
It is the judge’s job to keep irrelevant testimony out of the trial. Abortion is not on trial here, he is — so the specifics of the procedure are not relevant to this trial.
Think of it from a different perpsective ...
The terrorists that Barack is stupidly dragging into American courts ... should they be allowed to take the stand in their defense and spout anti-American propaganda that is fundamentally irrelevant to the question as to whether they were involved in terrorist activity?
The only question before the Court is whether Roeder murdered someone. The victim (scumbag) is not on trial here ... and has likely endured a much more harrowing trial at the foot of the Almighty.
Roeder knew what he was doing when he pulled the trigger ... he should be convicted and imprisoned for life (or executed). He’s no hero.
SnakeDoc
“...murders a doctor in cold blood.”
Tiller was NOT a doctor; he was an abortionist. Ask any medical doctor if you don’t believe me!
The guy is definitely guilty based on the current law of the state. However, I think that he sees it as an acceptable price to pay. He’s made himself a martyr for his cause. However, I doubt that he has succeeded in saving many, if any, babies.
There is no doubt Roeder committed a crime, it is up to the jury to decide which one.
Hence the reason he should be afforded a fair trial to include testifying about the abortion procedures that helped motivate him to believe his victim’s behavior was so horrible the only way he could be stopped was to kill him. Such testimony is not irrelevant. Add to that the fact that the judicial system failed when this “doctor” was indicted (other testimony barred by the judge), Roeder had a “rational justification” (in his mind) which may lead to a less severe penalty.
It’s a reasonable defense although it won’t likely be successful. Case law has ruled that simply because a defense will not likely be successful the court cannot deny someone the opportunity to attempt it.
The point is, the guy is guilty of a crime, no doubt, however, under no circumstances should his rights to present a defense be abridged simply because he is a critic of abortion and the court wishes to remain PC.
100% agree.
I reckons if you shoots somebody, that gives you the right to speak the truth to power on the stand.
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.