Marrisa Alexander Gets New Trial

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Doc3402, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    Mods: Feel free to move this if I put it in the wrong folder.

    For those of you that may be unfamiliar with this case Marissa Alexander is the Jacksonville, Fl woman that left the area of the threat and went to her car to get a gun. She then returned to the location of the threat and stood her ground, firing one shot that luckily hit nobody.

    Ms Alexander's case has been used in arguments both for and against SYG and mandatory minimum sentencing for firearms crimes. She was offered a 3 year plea deal with time served by SA Angela Corey, but instead chose a jury trial based on her SYG defense. The jury took 12 minutes to return with a guilty verdict. Because a shot was fired Ms Alexander was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison.

    Well, it seems that our appeals court thinks there may have been some problems with the jury instructions, and they have granted a new trial. You can read more at the link below.

    http://www.news4jax.com/news/appeal...ander/-/475880/22131486/-/16ux9s/-/index.html
     
  2. Mason609

    Mason609 Active Member

    1,850
    0
    36
    Hmmm... I mixed on this.

    On the one hand, I'm certain there have been real criminals that are a constant threat to society in FL that have not been subjected to the "mandatory" sentencing BS. And that the "mandatory" sentences should be more of a guideline.

    On the other hand, if what I have read is true, and that she entered his home, then she put herself in a possible dangerous situation, and that once she left the threat was gone. Going to her car, getting her gun and going back inside would make her the aggressor.

    Castle Doctrine wouldn't apply if the above is accurate. And I'm almost certain SYG wouldn't apply, either.

    I think it's good she's getting a retrial, hopefully she has a much better lawyer this time around.

    On a side note: never ever ever call it a "warning shot".
     

  3. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    We have sentencing guidelines for most crimes. We also have mandatory minimums for certain types of crimes. She ran into the mandatory minimum. During the commission of a certain felonies in Florida, if you show a gun you get 10 years. If you fire the gun you get 20. If you wound or kill somebody it's 25 to life. The funny part is that 10-20-Life as they called it actually worked. There was a major drop in gun crime.

    For the sake of my blood pressure I'm going to pretend you said "career" criminals instead of "real" criminals.

    Warning shot, officer? No sir. That was a miss.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013
  4. Mason609

    Mason609 Active Member

    1,850
    0
    36
    I understand the 10-20-Life and don't have any issues with it, as long as it's administered equally (or justly, maybe fairly?)

    I didn't use career criminals because I personally believe they should have a 3 strike rule to keep them in line.

    By "real" criminals, I meant (yes, career can be included) someone that is actively and knowingly engaged in a criminal act and not some poor sob that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I like that.
     
  5. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    I would put her in that class. Let me tell you why.

    She went to his house to attempt to retrieve the rest of their baby's stuff. She had a restraining order against this man and thought he would be out when she went over there. That was her first mistake. She should have asked for an officer to accompany her, which is something normally done by the local SO.

    While she was in this man's house he came home and found her in the bathroom. A discussion began. She walked past him, through the bathroom doorway, and out of the house without meeting any resistance according to the oldest child.

    At this point she went to her car and removed a firearm, reportedly from the glove compartment. He did not follow her. She next reentered the house with the firearm. She found the father and his two children and willfully fired a shot in the direction of the father. She states it was a warning shot, but the shot was at head level in his direction.

    She ended up being arrested and prosecuted. She was offered a three year plea deal, which she refused. Her SYG defense was denied, a fact which the appellate court agrees with.

    Now I'm sorry, but when she left the area of threat, armed herself, and returned it is my opinion that she intended to commit a crime. She may not have known it was a crime, she may not have believed it was a crime under these circumstances, but it was in fact a crime. In my eyes that makes her a criminal.

    Yes, she did have a clean record prior to the incident, but all that really means is that she hasn't been arrested. We don't know what kind of life she lived. She could have been completely law abiding, or she could have been very lucky.

    Something else we do know. Following her arrest and release on bail she again attacked the same man with a frying pan in spite of the fact that there was a restraining order out forbidding her to have any contact with this man. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to time served. She got lucky on that one. Since she used a weapon the charge could have been felony aggravated battery.

    The state has tried to cut this woman every break she could ever want, but she either got bad advice, is convinced of her right to shoot at people if they piss her off, or she is so incredibly stupid she needs reminders to breathe.
     
  6. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    I'm addressing this point separately for a reason. Many say that there is a racial bias when applying this law. I don't see that to be true. Marissa Alexander, a black female, was offered a three year plea deal by Angela Corey. A three year deal for shooting at a man and his kids. It doesn't get much better than that for a charge of aggravated assault with a firearm.

    This is the important part. The minute Ms. Alexander refused that deal she sealed her own fate. If she was unlucky enough to get convicted there was no longer any choice about how long she was going to live behind bars. She knew this going in, but she was under the impression that what she did was self-defense.

    So, the state gets another shot at her. According to an interview with Angela Corey a plea deal is still a possibility. If this woman has a 1/4 candle power brain she will take the deal. If she doesn't, and if the conviction is upheld, she will get 20 years.

    This case points out a few things that I find very interesting. First, even though it involved children, the state tried to cut this woman a break. Even though she was black the state tried to address this realistically. It's not like she killed anybody.

    What I have a problem with is that by the sentencing guidelines someone that stabs someone to death will probably serve less time than someone that intentionally shoots at another person, providing they are sentenced under 10-20-Life. No, I do not mean I want 10-20-Life reduced. I want tougher sentences for the other crimes. There is no parole with 10-20-Life. I think parole should be eliminated for anyone convicted of violent crimes against a person if they result in death or great bodily harm.
     
  7. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,436
    115
    63
    I understand the same to be true. Though she had a restraining order against the ex, she was in his home, not hers when all of this took place. This would seem to change the rules on the restraining order.
     
  8. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    My understanding on that is that since it was his home, and she didn't live there, she pretty much voided the order for the period of time she was there. If it had been a public place he would have been obligated to leave.
     
  9. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    2
    0
    I saw something about this on the news the other day. The guy is a major scumbag. Has 5 different "baby mammas" and (by his own admission) has assaulted them all. She is an idiot for getting involved with him in the first place, but that does not make her a criminal. I was immediately suspect of the verdict when I heard it only took something like 12 minutes to reach. How much deliberation is possible in 12 minutes?
     
  10. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    How much deliberation is needed when she admits to pulling the trigger and firing a "warning shot"? She told anybody that would listen exactly what happened. She actually believed that she was standing her ground and it would all work out in her favor.