Tweet
My FDL colleague Teddy Partridge has already blogged about this horrifying news, but I wanted to register my own level of despair (but not surprise) about the mistrial declared in the murder case of Brandon McInerney, who shot classmate 15-year-old Lawrence King in the back of the head at point-blank range with a .22-caliber gun.
The defense’s case rested on a naked claim of gay panic — that McInerney was somehow so traumatized by King’s dressing in makeup and girl’s boots and teasing him that McInerney had to resort to homicide to alleviate his discomfort.
Defense attorney Scott Wippert and co-counsel Robyn Bramson didn’t dispute that McInerney killed King. But they argued he was pushed to an emotional breaking point by King’s attentions toward him and the school’s failure to rein in King’s conduct.
They also appeared to reach out for jury sympathy by calling several of McInerney’s relatives to the stand to testify to the abuse the young boy suffered at the hands of his drug-abuser father.
“Rein in King’s conduct.” Exactly what was the boy doing? Just think if every teen girl or woman who receives “unwanted attention” chose homicide as a way to solve the problem. Teen angst, an abusive home life, even getting teased or “hit on” as McInerney’s lawyers allege doesn’t excuse the premeditated act of bringing a deadly weapon to school and assassinating a schoolmate.
Teddy:
Our criminal justice system is entirely broken if the unsettling behavior of homicide victims is allowed as a justification for their murder, in middle school. This jury needs to do its job, not moan about how hard this decision is. It wasn’t hard for Brandon McInerney to get a gun and kill Larry King.
It shouldn’t be hard to convict him of that murder.
Score a win for gay panic. GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network gave this response to the mistrial – Executive Director Eliza Byard:
The jury could not reach an agreement on whether to find McInerney guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter. The prosecution and defense could reach a plea deal, or the prosecution could pursue a new trial.
“The mistrial declared today is hardly a surprise. This was always destined to be a case with little resolution and no winners, whatever the verdict. The central facts remain the same: homophobia killed Larry King and destroyed Brandon McInerney’s life, and adults failed both young men because of their own inability to deal forthrightly and compassionately with the multiple challenges they each faced. The jury’s indecision is a sad reflection of our collective inability to find common ground and invest in a better future for all youth and a culture of respect for all.”
17 Comments
heartbreaking
Outrageous. I thought that California had done away with the “gay panic” defense but apparently there are ways to get around that.
“This jury needs to do its job, not moan about how hard this decision is.”
The jury does not have a “job” or any requirement whatsoever to return a verdict that pleases you.
If you don’t like it , too bad.
If a jury were required to return a particular verdict what would be the point of having one?
Yes, this was the first trial in which a jury got the instructions based on this law:
AB 1160: Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act
Lead Author Assemblymember Lieber, D-San Jose
AB 1160 would amend jury instructions to state that the use of societal bias, including so-called “panic strategies,” to influence the proceedings of a criminal trial is not permitted. It would also direct the Office of Emergency Services to develop materials for city and county prosecutors explaining how to prevent bias from affecting the outcome of a trial. This legislation is named in the memory of a transgender teenager from Newark, California, who was attacked and killed in 2002.
STATUS: Passed by Legislature. Signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 28, 2006.
I am at a loss. I don’t understand how the defense could have presented what’s been described, under this new law.
The jury is required by law to omit anti-gay bias from their deliberations, which was the entire basis of the defense. Their job is to follow the law, of course. The result I would have preferred would have done that, not this lazy abandonment of their responsibility.
I served on a murder jury once. We had many, many more than three votes and deliberated about six times the fifteen hours the McInerney jury devoted to their efforts.
They gave up.
This is disgusting. I get so sick and tired of seeing news stories of lgbt being attacked and or murdered just for existing. Exacerbating that is when justice is denied as well. I have to admit I am having a violent reaction in my mind. I am tired of us always being the victims of their hate.
Disgusting! I thought we were past this kind of thing.
Would the verdict have been different if McInerney had not been tried as an adult? I understand all the frustration with the gay panic defense, but McInerney was a child. I personally would have had serious qualms about convicting him as though he had the emotional stability and reason of an adult, notwithstanding the brutality and pre-meditation of the crime.
14 year olds do know what murder is and that it is wrong. There is no excuse for planning a school mate’s murder and carrying it out.
OT– “Pima County GOP Raffles Off Glock In Gabrielle Giffords’ District” (Sept. 1, 2011)
The legal term is, “gross miscarriage of justice,” here.
More to the point: if the killing of the victim by the defendant was conceded by the defense, then what stopped the jury from finding a verdict of second-degree murder? or voluntary manslaughter, at least? And what, exactly, went on during the voir dire phase of jury selection? Because, frankly, under the California Penal Code, a murder is about the act and mindset of the accused, not the victim.
This stinks like a million dead sardines.
It could be worse. At least with a mistrial there’s still a chance of getting him convicted later.
Of what? Because, frankly, there’ll be a retrial from which LGBT jurors will be excluded for cause, sympathetic jurors removed on peremptory challenges, and the resulting jury will find that Lawrence King invited his murder because he was too provocative, and the defendant will get a suspended sentence and maybe a Medal of Freedom. We saw this too many times before in California, with the Gwen Arajo case, with … well, all the way back to Harvey Milk. My client ate too many Twinkies, Your Honor.
I agree, I’m not faulting your own reasoning, it could be worse, the jury could have found him not guilty. But Lawrence King is dead, he deserved to live, and someone needs to answer.
There’s still a chance to make him answer.
From the moment the judge allowed the defense to plead manslaughter this has been a foregone conclusion.
Brandon should be acquitted, armed with several assault weapons and permitted to roam the streets, slaughtering at will everyone he finds offensive. He’d be the kind of citizen California, to all appearances, would be proud of. God bless American justice!
There’s also a challenge working its way up through the 9th Circuit WRT exclusion of LGBT jurors.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2087281,00.html
Might want to watch this case. Also, I believe there’s something similar in California case law on jurors and peremptory challenges. And this kind of removal isn’t just on cases involving gay litigants: my spouse once got removed from a jury panel simply because of his answer to who he was partnered or married to.
“14 year olds do know what murder is and that it is wrong.”
As far as I remember articles on judgments of adolescents this isn’t all that clear. But I’m willing to ignore it in this case.