Yet another incomprehensible verdict from a jury wrapped around the new favorite argument of defense lawyers evereywhere: to convict, the State needs to prove intent.
In other words, a motive, a murder weapon, even a confession are no longer sufficient proof of wrongdoing: the State now has to prove that the person who murders really “intended” to do it all along.
I first read about this argument in the case of a mother who was found innocent of murdering her child just shy of his second birthday. In her case, the jury decided that just because she didn’t feed him, she didn’t “intend” that he die.
Similarly, earlier this week, a jury found one Kyle Bryant innocent of participating in the murder of his pregnant 14 year old girlfriend, even though the prosecutors offered a motive and the police obtained a confession that he was at the murder scene.
Jurors claimed that the judge left them no choice:
Superior Court Judge Patrick F. Brady’s instructions tied the jury’s hands, by telling them the required elements for a joint venture conviction are that the defendant must be present at the scene and share the intent of the killer.
Until mind reading becomes accepted forensic science, it seems like we all can get away with murder.
Or, more to the point, until mind reading becomes admissible in courts of law, someone can murder you or one of your loved ones with no adverse consequence, laughing all the way.