Skip to comments.Mother shot 13-month-old boy in stroller for insurance money, say defense attorneys for teen
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 ...
Sick, just sick. Lawyer needs taken out of society, one way or another.
Even if it is true.....sorry buddy you pulled the trigger and you deserve the death penalty.
The mom had one of those “baby insurance programs from GERBER” they issue millions of these...it was not enough to provide motive for murder...defense attorneys literally suck and lie
Not much reasonable doubt about that.
Of course many prosecutors are not much better.
Doesn’t this provide the basis of a slander lawsuit against the defense attorney by the mother of the deceased?
You mean like that dip stick that tried to railroad the Duke players?
Okay she called the insurance company for payment but she'd need the money after this incident.
The perp's accomplice said HE shot the baby, not her. I'll believe the accomplice, thank you. The shooter's family hid evidence and the .22 hand gun was found in a pond.
Words fail me.
What we have here is a lawyer that needs to be severely beaten in the parking lot as he heads home to his own wife and children.
Seriesly. That’s the Chicago way.
But, what do the “just-us brothers” have to say? They could be the determining factor. No just-us, no piece (of the pie).
Assuming while she was making funeral arrangements, the funeral home probably asked for payment. Were there eye witnesses to the shooting?
I believe her older daughter early on said she thought her mother did it because of conversations about money and her age......
I expect nothing better from the fatherless gangbanger that is on trial.
But I thought lawyers had some standards.
Does anyone know if the lawyer is a Blackafricanmericanperzonofcolor or not.
Evil and stupid - if that doesn’t turn the jury against the defendant nothing will. It’s easy to see why this shyster is a public defender.
I tried my Publius shtick on him, discussing American history, and found that there was so much he didn't know.
He's just trying to defend an indefensible client. He's doing his duty, but his duty grates on me.
Sigh. He needs to jealously represent the interests of his client. That's his job, and it's a critical one.
I've no idea how a man can do that in this situation, though, and still look at himself in a mirror in the morning. Maybe disassociate himself from it, look at it as a theoretical exercise rather than a real world one?
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 cant 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.
If it turns out she was involved, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
but how do you explain this guy’s cohort saying he did it?
This guy is getting splinters scraping the bottom of the barrel for a smidgin of reasonable doubt.
Their job isn't to prove their client innocent (that is supposed to be presumed), but to give the jury a reason to find their client may not have committed the crime, despite the evidence presented against them.
If that scenario is not credible, the jury will dismiss it as not being a good and reasonable defense and find the accused guilty if the evidence so indicates.
At least, that's how it is supposed to work.
He is doing the mother an incredible disservice, but he is doing his job. Unfortunately, he should be doing it in the courtroom, not the media.
But even if a teen was hired as a killer, he would be probably smart enough to shoot from a hidden place, secure the retreat, to have an alibi, and to remain quiet. Since this crime was solved within a day, the shooter was not prepared, and the crime occurred randomly.
A few on business ethics. But, a decent moral center makes them all easy. And if my company makes them hard, I go find somewhere else to work :-)
Nope, I'm more concerned about making the right engineering *decision* (or business decision, depending). Did I consider all the variables? Did I make the right choice for a vendor? etc. Harder calls to make, maybe, but I never wonder if I'm a bad person for choosing vendor 'X' over vendor 'Y'. :-)
Nancy Grace will be going after the “tot mom” in 3..2..1..
Blaming the dead baby’s grandfather worked in the Anthony trial, establishing ‘doubt’ about his daughter’s guilt. These lawyers get mighty desperate with lousy cases and will try to pull absolutely anything out of the hat, caring not a whit about this woman’s life that has already been wrecked.
If she wanted to do away with her baby for insurance purposes or any other reason, there are other ways to do away with the baby like smothering it in the crib or any other number of other “accidents”. I’m not buying it.
Interesting defense, I wonder if he has the evidence to back it up.
“But even if a teen was hired as a killer, he would be probably smart enough to shoot from a hidden place, secure the retreat, to have an alibi, and to remain quiet.”
Have you seen the pictures of this guy?