Boy Kills Family. Dog Bites Back?
"When you beat a dog again and again and again, do you really expect it's never going to bite back?" said defense attorney Gary Mitchell after his client Cody Posey was convicted for the deaths of his family members. One count of manslaughter (for his father), second degree murder for his step-mom and first degree murder for his little sister. According to CourtTV, ranch hand Slim Britton, who worked with Paul Posey and testified in the trial, said that he felt the family deserved to die, including Cody's thirteen year old sister who he accused of ratting him out in exchange for rewards from his parents.
"My heart absolutely breaks for that boy," said one defense supporter and family friend, "We knew it might be bad, but I never dreamed they would go this far." Sadly, this "family friend" was not referring to the brutal murder of three people, but to the sentencing handed down to the perpetrator.
Justice was served for Cody Posey, but what about his family? Did they have their day in court to face their accusers? As the defense argued, Cody took it upon himself to be the judge, jury and executioner. I'd say the punishment fits the crime.
"My heart absolutely breaks for that boy," said one defense supporter and family friend, "We knew it might be bad, but I never dreamed they would go this far." Sadly, this "family friend" was not referring to the brutal murder of three people, but to the sentencing handed down to the perpetrator.
Justice was served for Cody Posey, but what about his family? Did they have their day in court to face their accusers? As the defense argued, Cody took it upon himself to be the judge, jury and executioner. I'd say the punishment fits the crime.
posted by Nunzia at 6:54 AM
5 Comments:
I just looked it up in my trial practice handbook:
"Avoid making analogies that require you to refer to your client as a dog." Page 3, in the chapter entitled, "How To Give a Closing Argument That Does Not Guarantee That You Will Lose."
Aren't most people, even though it's tragic, pretty much in favor of putting a dog down when it attacks? Was this defense really thought through?
They pretty much just took the point of view that because he was abused meant he was defending himself. Didn't they realize that self defense is not consistent with killing other people merely because they witnessed the crime? He actually killed his step-mom first so he could kill his dad. Tampering with the evidence also isn't consistent with self-defense. His lawyers thought that the jury would be sympathetic because of the alleged abuse but when it comes down to it, there are tons of kids who are abused that do NOT do what this boy did. Murder is murder.
I agree about the dog analogy.
Yeah. As I'm reading what he said, I'm picturing a rabid pitbull with scars on its head. How many jurors were picturing the same thing.
Also, we need to round up the law nerds out there. This is a cool blog, so LET'S GO PEOPLE!!! Get it together and start commenting here.
i have to agree... The fact that they were able to get the father down to manslaughter when there were doubts as to whether or not he was abused was a victory for the defense. (The father's family, particularly his brother, was very upset by that given they didn't believe there was enough evidence. I just wonder what will happen in sentencing.
Your blog is very interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home