Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on.
Except for the glaring fact that Roeder’s own testimony demonstrated premeditation. Voluntary manslaughter is, if I understand correctly, killing with no premeditation.
How could a jury possibly find him guilty of the lesser charge, given his testimony? The self defense angle in voluntary manslaughter still requires no premeditation to kill. And clearly, there was plenty of premeditation.
Easy. The jury COULD have ruled it “Justifiable Homicide”.
I wonder why no jury member considered it a Justifiable Homicide? Or perhaps they did, but had their minds changed?