McInerney Suffered Physical, Sexual Abuse, Brother Says
Filed By Karen Ocamb | August 06, 2011 10:00 AM
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/08/mcinerney_suffered_physical_sexual_abuse_brother_s.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/08/mcinerney_suffered_physical_sexual_abuse_brother_s.php)
The defense in Brandon McInerney's murder trial underway in Chatsworth is trying to suggest that his abusive childhood was a strong contributing factor behind the then-14-year-old's shooting of his 15-year-old gay classmate Larry King in their Oxnard classroom in February 2008.
The Ventura County Star reported that McInerney's aunt, Megan Csorba, his father Billy's sister, testified on Thursday that Brandon's father - who died in 2009 - "would sit on his son until he couldn't breathe, pull his thumb back until he screamed, and punch him in the face."
Csorba testified that the physical and verbal abuse started when Brandon was 7 and only got worse when Billy was on drugs, which apparently was often. She also testified that Brandon's mother Kendra was also a victim of Billy's abuse and also abused drugs - smoking crystal methamphetamine when she was pregnant with Brandon.
which still doesn't justify cold blooded murder!
Quote from: Zythyra on August 07, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
which still doesn't justify cold blooded murder!
testimony of that type is not offered for justification. It *IS* offered for the purposes of mitigation. Defense 101.
Sorry "Twinkies" defense. Without proper therapy, there simple seems like it is being used as means to a "No Guilty, by reason of mental defect or deficiency ". IMPO.
Quote from: Irish Janet on August 08, 2011, 10:45:41 AM
Sorry "Twinkies" defense. Without proper therapy, there simple seems like it is being used as means to a "No Guilty, by reason of mental defect or deficiency ". IMPO.
Criminal law is NOT a either/or proposition...further, just because either the State or the defense atty happens to offer something up does NOT mean the jury will accept it. But it would be malpractice (and appealable as an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim) to NOT offer whatever might exist that could mitigate the maximum penalty or that could potentially sway a jury to consider a lesser-included offense.
I always find it interesting how many people rag on counsel for offering such matters but would absolutely be aghast if they happened to be the one on trial and counsel failed to offer whatever might exist in the way of mitigation...and yes, I see people every day who have subscribed to that very double standard.
Ann,
Very salient points! We laymen, armchair lawyers really only view these issues from our own emotional perspectives. I find it interesting (myself), to actually consider how, in such heinous affair as that which this thread is about, one would contemplate as a defense attorney tactics to mitigate the issue in front of a jury. It is fascinating!
Dawn