Oscar Pistorius will be charged tomorrow with the premeditated murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. He is expected to enter a plea of not guilty with a trial to begin in March 2014.
Did he plan to and intend to kill Steenkamp (premeditated murder) or was it an accidental killing?
Reeva was behind a locked interior toilet door with her cell phone in the very early morning hours of February 14, 2013. Neighbors claim they heard arguing coming from Oscar’s home. According to Oscar, he and Reeva were sleeping in the bed when he heard a noise. He gets out of the far side of the bed, goes to the other side of bed, the side closest to the bathroom where he hears the noise, and grabs his gun which is underneath the bed just below the area where Reeva was sleeping. According to the bail hearing, he doesn’t call out to Reeva or check that she is safe. He instead fires several shots into the toilet believing an intruder was inside and kills Steenkamp dead.
As a former domestic prosecutor, the evidence, so far, unfortunately, points to a tragic domestic violence killing. Fear of losing was the intruder.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
(Update 8/18/2013: Pistorius to be formally charged tomorrow with premeditated murder of Steenkamp. Not guilty plea expected with trial to begin in March 2014. No doubt, it will be a battle of the forensic experts.)
Oscar Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp out of fear. Fear of losing her, the same reason domestic violence victims are killed by their partners. The only intruder that evening was Oscar’s emotions. Call it jealous rage, heat of passion, fear of rejection, fear of abandonment or unresolved grief from the loss of another woman he deeply loved, his mother, the result is the same, a 29-year-old woman is dead. Shot 4 times by her boyfriend, Oscar.
Anyone who knows anything about domestic violence or has suffered as a victim of domestic violence knows what happened to Reeva in the early morning hours of Valentine’s Day and knows why Reeva took her cellphone into the toilet and locked the toilet door at 3 am. Doors are locked for protection.
Yet, defenses can be crafted to play or capitalize on people’s fear. After all, any salesperson knows emotions are how you sway outcomes. Ask OJ Simpson, a high-profile athlete who walked, when he played on people’s fear of racism, police corruption, and distrust of the police to distract from a classic DV killing. So far, Oscar’s intruder defense is working. As reported, it clearly “resonates” with the public. It is meant to and it is meant to sway the ultimate decider, the trial judge. Who doesn’t have a fear of an intruder? Yet, is that really what happened here? Certainly, it allows people to look away from the ugly truth of domestic violence. But, unlike the OJ Simpson case, domestic violence is front and center. We know Oscar killed Reeva, he admitted it. The question is “why” not “who”. Now, we have to look even deeper as to the “WHY” did he kill and that puts domestic violence on trial.
The intruder defense is nonsense. Oscar claims he has a fear of intruders yet he leaves the bedroom balcony sliding doors open as they slept. There were no burglar bars on the bathroom window. The bathroom window was left open. Ladders were left outside of the house. Does that sound like someone who has a fear of intruders? Simply, not credible. But, maybe you want to “resonate” with an intruder fear because it is easier than looking at the ugliness of domestic violence. Or, maybe you’d rather focus on whether the police wore shoe covers and ignore that Oscar shot at someone behind a locked door, a situation lacking danger and provocation, amounting to an unjustified killing.
Oscar’s version is simply not plausible. Are we to believe that Oscar would not protect the “love of his life” when faced with a possible intruder? Would you leave “the love of your life” in bed without alerting them, ensuring their safety or even checking on their whereabouts before you go to check for an intruder? I find it interesting that the talking heads on TV explain it away by saying, “you never know what you would do in that situation” Hogwash. Ask anyone. We instinctively protect the ones we love.
Having prosecuted domestic violence cases, I get it. People don’t want to look at problem of domestic violence, they’d rather blame it on a victim’s clothing or an intruder. And, they certainly don’t want to see it in someone they have idolized for years like a national hero or a celebrity. Who wants to admit their hero is a killer? Or, that they were deceived? Or, if he could kill in rage, could I?
Given the public outrage over the recent brutal gang rape of a 17-year-old South African woman, the growing epidemic of violence against women and the fact that a woman in South Africa is raped every 3 minutes, an “accidental” killing would surely avoid more public outrage, unrest and a quick conviction. Maybe, Oscar believes he accidentally killed Reeva, but, who would believe that Reeva didn’t cry out after the first shot?
Maybe, it wasn’t a coincidence that Reeva had begun to speak out about violence against women. Just as she began to shine the light on domestic violence, her death will hopefully bring awareness, change and healing.
And, maybe, Oscar can turn his pain into helping others heal their emotional wounds before they act out in violence.
Rest in peace, Ms. Steenkamp.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
Read my other post: Oscar Pistorius What Doesn’t Make Sense
You tell me, did ESPN Sportscaster Brent Musburger’s comments, during last Monday’s Alabama v. Notre Dame Football game, about the QB’s girlfriend, Miss Alabama’s Katherine Webb, place a value on women? Objectify women?
Brent Musburger said, “you see that lovely lady there? She does go to Auburn, I’ll admit that, but she’s also Miss Alabama, and that’s A.J. McCarron’s girlfriend. Wow, I’m telling ya, you quarterbacks, you get all the good-looking women. What a beautiful woman! Whoa! So if you’re a youngster in Alabama, start getting the football out and throw it around the backyard with pops.”
CNN contributor, Dean Obeidallah, along with many others immediately dismissed Musburger’s comments as “playful” or otherwise, and they wonder why the “instant outrage”.
Are women possessions? Do men, young men or football players “get” women?
Although Mr. Obeidallah, a former attorney, did identify the problem (and the reason for the outrage) when he said, “The only criticism that’s arguably fair is Musburger’s implication that if you are great quarterback, you will have earned a beautiful woman– a reward, more than a human being. If that had been Musburger’s intention, that, of course, would have been wrong.”, he also doesn’t realize the damage. When you use words like “get” or earned” in reference to women, there is no implication or confusion as to what is meant. We all immediately understood the “implication”, as evidenced by the instant outrage. (Read his full article here)
When you place a value on or objectify any woman, you devalue all women. And, when women are devalued, women are fired for being “too attractive”, paid less, denied access to health care, lawful abortions, forced to submit to invasive vaginal probes, forced genital mutilation, forced into prostitution, trafficked for sex, beaten by their partners, raped and, gang raped, allegedly, in Steubenville Ohio and New Delhi India. (Read my prior article here)
I can tell you, as a former domestic violence prosecutor, the words and implications do matter.
And, gentlemen, hats off, for, unknowingly, opening up the discussion and shining the light on how women are valued, or, not valued.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
Turns out, the protests claiming a “police cover-up” or “corruption” by the Steubenville Police Department and City Leaders to protect a group of local “Big Red” high school football players allegedly involved in the gang rape of a teenage girl were to be expected.
In 1997, the US Department of Justice found a “pattern or practice of” civil rights violations by the Steubenville Police Department including excessive use of force, false arrests, false charges, tampering with evidence, false reporting, and political corruption resulting in a lawsuit against the City of Steubenville, the Steubenville Police Department, the City Manager, and the Civil Service Commission.
The DOJ alleged in the Steubenville lawsuit, “that officers of the Steubenville Police Department have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges,or immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and that the City of Steubenville, the Steubenville Police Department, and the Steubenville City Manager (in his capacity as Director of Public Safety) have caused and condoned this conduct through inadequate policies and failure to train, monitor, supervise, and discipline police officers, and to investigate alleged misconduct, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.” (US v. City of Steubenville, Steubenville Police Department, Steubenville City Manager, in his capacity as director of Public Safety, and Steubenville Civil Service Commission, Civil No. C2 97-966, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, August 28, 1997.)
Over a twenty year period, the city (Steubenville) lost, or settled out of court, 48 civil rights lawsuits involving its police force. The city paid out more than $800,000, $400,000 of which was between 1990 and 1996. As a result, the city’s police force became the second city in the United States to sign a consent decree with the federal government due to an excessive number of civil rights lawsuits, as stated on wikipedia.com. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio)
As a settlement, the City of Steubenville agreed to a Court Consent Decree allowing for monitoring of the Steubenville police department by the DOJ and the implementation of an extensive list of changes to the police department’s training program, police procedures including the creation of an internal affairs unit to handle police complaints. Read full consent decree here.
This all may just be old news from 14 years ago, but, when the DOJ finds a “pattern or practice'” of civil rights violations and police misconduct, most attorneys will continue to look under the hood, especially, given that the current gang rape investigation was done and remains in the hands of the Steubenville Police Department. As we all know, cases can be won or lost depending on what a police officer/investigation did or didn’t do. Just ask OJ Simpson.
So, what’s changed in Steubenville? Has there been a significant reduction in the number of civil rights lawsuits and police complaints? Have the players changed? I can’t tell by the City’s new “transparent” website, but, I did find out that the current police chief and others did not go to the same Big Red high school as the defendant football players. (http://steubenvillefacts.squarespace.com/).
However, I did notice that Steubenville’s attorney has not changed. Mr. Gary Rapella, Steubenville’s law director, was the attorney of record back in 1997 for all the Steubenville defendants during the DOJ lawsuit and his name appears today as the law director. (http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PN-OH-0002-0003.pdf) Having been a deputy city attorney myself, I presume that Mr. Rapella continues to provide legal advice to the Steubenville Police Department, City Council and the City of Steubenville on the handling of their current police cases including the current gang rape investigation, media scrutiny and public protests.
On most days, police departments and city officials walk a tough line. Yet, these days, it may be wiser to call in an outside agency to handle the prosecution and the investigation of a potentially high-profile case (think Penn State and Duke) to avoid allegations of a “cover-up”, the intense media scrutiny and the expected public protests (Anonymous'”Occupy Steubenville”) especially, when the jurisdiction has a marked history of police misconduct and civil rights violations. Not to mention, the potential of jeopardizing the underlying case.
The question remains has Steubenville learned the lessons of the past.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
(Update 1/31/2013: In the Ohio gang rape case, Judge Thomas R. Lipps denied the defense’s request for change of venue and trial will be open to media against the wishes of the victim’s family and the prosecution. Media lawyers had requested open proceedings. Trial date continued to March 13 in juvenile court.)
(Update 1/10/2013: Please read the comments, including those from Steubenville Attorney (and NAACP chair) Richard Olivito whose case “kicked” off the DOJ police misconduct investigation…he is still shining the light…)
(Update: 1/8/2013: As to what’s changed? It was not until 2005 that the Steubenville police department was found in full compliance with the 1997 court-ordered consent decree. During those 8 years, the court-appointed auditor Charles Reynolds filed quarterly reports, noting problems including with “supervision and discipline” of officers.http://www.parc.info/client_files/Newsletters/2002/7%20-%20novemberbpr02.pdf. The current police chief, William McCafferty, has been with the police department since 1989, thus, he was on the force during the time of the “excessive” “pattern or practice” of civil rights violations resulting in the consent decree. He was promoted to acting police chief in 2001, as many officers had left as they “didn’t want any part of the consent decree”. In 2003, he became the permanent police chief when the DOJ allowed him to be sworn in. His interview is worth the read. I wonder if it may have been a better idea to have an outside police chief, rather than promote one who was “trained” and “raised” in an environment that required a DOJ (taxpayer) lawsuit to get the police officers and the police department in compliance with the law. http://www.parc.info/client_files/Newsletters/2005/4%20-%20aprilppr05.pdf. Also, I wonder if the Steubenville police training includes the proper recovery and preservation of certain forensic evidence like cell phones, videos and tweets.
(Update 1/6/2013: As just reported on CNN, a defense attorney claims that the alleged victim sent a text to his client stating that the “rape didn’t happen” and that the attorney doesn’t think “she (victim) thinks she was raped”. The other defense attorney when asked about the issue of consent and alcohol, stated that the victim “was conscious”. What? This is an alleged gang rape case–who consents to a gang rape? Speaking as a former DV prosecutor, rape is about power, control, humiliation and violence. It is not about love or sex, and given those dynamics, alleged victim recantation is not a surprise and it doesn’t stop a prosecution in light of other physical and witness evidence. BTW in Ohio, it’s not a statutory rape case if the victim is 16, the age of consent. The defendants were charged as juveniles as the age of an adult is 18 and charging as an adult is up to the judge. Lastly, as to the police department, I wonder why no adult including the football coach who reportedly hosted one of the parties that August night where alcohol was allegedly served hasn’t been charged with any offense. Apparently, as reported on CNN, no other defendants will be charged in the alleged gang rape case. For rape crisis services, please contact http://www.rccmsc.org/faq.aspx or National Sexual Assault Hotline 800-656-HOPE; suspected civil rights violation contact US DOJ at http://www.justice.gov/crt/complaint/#one )
Do we value women? That’s it. That’s the question Steubenville Ohio and New Delhi India asks us all to answer.
When a woman is gang raped and murdered in New Delhi India and a Ohio teenage girl is gang raped, allegedly, by a group of high school football players while many others stood by and did nothing except to video, take pics and tweet about it, the answer is no. We don’t value women.
When our US “leaders” repeatedly fail to reauthorize VAWA, the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, the law that unequivocally reduced the incidents and increased the prosecutions and funding of domestic violence prevention programs, the answer is again no. We don’t value women.
When US politicians propose laws that use terms like “forcible” rape, as if any rape or qualification of rape is ok, or imply that a women can’t get pregnant when she is raped, the answer is still no. We don’t value women.
When women are denied access to health care including breast exams, pap smears and even, a legal abortion due to a “religious” objection, the answer is still no. We don’t value women.
When women are forced to terminate a female fetus, forced to submit to a vaginal probe before they can have a lawful abortion, forced to endure genital mutilation, denied an education, denied equal pay, fired because they are “too attractive”, blamed for going to a bar where they were attacked, blamed for “staying” in a domestic violence relationship or face potential violence in the workplace, on the streets, on a date or at the hands of their partner, the answer is still no. We don’t value women.
When our men, our husbands, partners, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, and male co-workers stand by and do nothing when the women they love are being devalued, the answer is still no. We don’t value women.
When parents and communities stand by and do nothing when their sons and daughters devalue each other through social media or fail to stop the violence and/or take any action to hold the offenders accountable, the answer is still no. We don’t value women.
And, when women stand by and do nothing when another women is being devalued, the answer is still no. We don’t value women.
Yet, until women have equality, freedom over their bodies, safety in their homes, workplaces and on any street, and the offenders are held accountable, violence against women and girls will continue.
This isn’t about hatred or anger. It’s about love and healing. But, we can’t get there until we look at the truth, however, painful. Ask yourself, is this the world you want to live in?
May India and Ohio find healing in the pain and lead us all forward.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
(Update 2/25/2013: On 2/14/2013 Reeva Steenkamp, a South African law grad & model was killed by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius, a paraOlympic and Olympic athlete. Pistorius is charged with the premeditated murder and his defense claims an accidental killing as Oscar thought he was shooting an intruder in the bathroom. Ms. Steenkamp had been in a prior domestic violence relationship and had begun to speak out about the violence against women. Ms. Steenkamp was killed just days after the brutal rape of a 17 year old South African woman which resulted in public outrage. On 2/22/2013, Pistorius was given bail after a 4 day hearing and 2 hour decision by Magistrate Nair. Next Court date June 4.)
(Update 2/5/2013: Trial began today in the New Delhi Rape & Murder trial. The first of 86 witnesses testified on direct with cross exam expected Wednesday. Court ruled limited reporting of testimony by media as reported on cnn.com.)
(Update 1/13/2012: Another gang rape in New Delhi India (Gurdaspur) this past friday night. This time it happened to a married 29 year old women who boarded a bus and was taken to a residence where the bus driver and his assistant were joined by 5 others who proceeded to gang rape the women and do “wrong things” to her throughout the night. 6 of the 7 men in custody. Why is this happening? Read article )
(Update 1/10/2013: You tell me did ESPN Sportscaster Brent Musburger’s comments, during last Monday’s Alabama v. Notre Dame televised championship Football game, about the QB’s girlfriend Miss Alambama’s Katherine Webb, place a value on women? Objectify women?:
“…you see that lovely lady there? She does go to Auburn, I’ll admit that, but she’s also Miss Alabama, and that’s A.J. McCarron’s girlfriend. Wow, I’m telling ya, you quarterbacks, you get all the good-looking women. What a beautiful woman! Whoa! So if you’re a youngster in Alabama, start getting the football out and throw it around the backyard with pops.”
Even CNN contributor, Dean Obeidallah, who consciously dismissed Musburger’s comments as “playful” and questioned the “instant outrage”, clearly made the connection, “The only criticism that’s arguably fair is Musburger’s implication that if you are great quarterback, you will have earned a beautiful woman — a reward, more than a human being. If that had been Musburger’s intention, that, of course, would have been wrong.”
Problem is, he like Musburger and others don’t see that placing a “value” on women or objectifying them actually devalues women and so does using language like “get” and “earned” in reference to women. Or, telling young men to play football so they can get a beautiful women.Are women possessions? Read full article here http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/obeidallah-musburger-comments/index.html
If Crystal Harris has her way, there will be no alimony or attorneys fees for convicted spouses and it’s called Assembly Bill 1522 (AB 1522). Ms. Harris’ husband was convicted by a jury in San Diego, California, of sexually assaulting her and he is now serving a 6 year prison sentence. Yet, a family law judge, ordered Ms. Harris to pay her husband alimony once he gets out of prison and allowed a settlement for her to pay her husband’s attorney’s fees ($47,ooo).
Yes, you read that right.
Turns out in California, judges in divorce proceedings can order alimony except in cases of a spouses conviction for attempted murder or solicitation of murder of their spouse (California Family Code Section 782.5 and 4324) . Yet, you’d think a judge, a family law judge no less, would never make such an order as it further traumatizes the victim and allows for the power and control dynamics of domestic violence to continue. And, in Ms. Harris’ case, it continues for the next 6 years even though her abuser is locked up in prison. Wow, that’s an exercise of judicial discretion especially given a judge has every right not to order alimony, as it is not required by law, and domestic violence convictions and incidents are legitimate factors to deny such an order, but apparently not for Judge Gregory Pollack.
And, now because of the judge’s order, amending the above law is being considered by the California Assembly’s Judicial Committee, Assembly Bill 1522 (AB 1522) to prohibit the next judge from awarding alimony, and attorneys fees to spouses convicted of certain violent sexual felonies under California Penal Code Section 667.5 (rape, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual penetration and assault with intent to commit the foregoing felonies).
On Tuesday March 20, 2012 from 9-11 am, the Judicial Committee of the California Assembly will hold a public hearing on the new bill at the State Capitol in Sacramento. Go voice your opinion. Or, you can contact the committee’s Chairman, Assemblyman Mike Feuer at 916-319-2042 (PO Box 942849 Room 2013, Sacramento CA 94249-0042), the Vice-chair Assemblyman Donald Wagner at 916-319-2070 (State Capitol, Room 4146, Sacramento, CA 94248-0001) and the bill sponsor, Assemblywoman Toni Atkins at 916-319-2076 (PO Box 942849, Room 4146, Sacramento, CA 94249-0076)
The bill will likely pass as it has bipartisan support and, frankly, as a former domestic violence prosecutor, it’s the right thing to do.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
See Crystal Harris’ story on ABC Nightline (4/4/2012):
See facts of case:
Assembly Bill No. 1522 Final Version Signed by Governor, becomes law 1/1/2013.
An act to amend Section 4320 of, and to add Section 4324.5 to, the Family Code, relating to family law.
[Approved by Governor September 28, 2012. Filed with Secretary of State September 28, 2012.]
AB 1522, Atkins. Family law: monetary awards.
Existing law provides that, in addition to any other remedy authorized by law, when a spouse is convicted of attempting to murder the other spouse or of soliciting the murder of the other spouse, the injured spouse shall be entitled to 100% of the community property interest in his or her retirement and pension benefits, and a prohibition of specified support or insurance benefits from the injured spouse to the convicted spouse. Existing law defines “injured spouse” for these purposes. Under existing law, a family court is required to consider specified factors in ordering spousal support, including the criminal conviction of an abusive spouse.
This bill would expand the above-described provisions to apply when a spouse is convicted of a specified violent sexual felony against the other spouse, and would require the court to consider the convicted spouse’s criminal conviction for a violent sexual felony in ordering spousal support, as specified. The bill would also require the court to order the attorney’s fees and costs to be paid from the community assets if warranted by economic circumstances. Under the bill, the injured spouse, as defined, would not be required to pay any of the convicted spouse’s attorney’s fees out of his or her separate property. The bill would further, at the request of the injured spouse, define the date of the parties’ legal separation as the date of the incident giving rise to the conviction, or earlier if the court finds that the circumstances justify an earlier date, for community property purposes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 4320 of the Family Code is amended to read:
4320. In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances:
(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, taking into account all of the following:
(1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market for those skills; the time and expenses required for the supported party to acquire the appropriate education or training to develop those skills; and the possible need for retraining or education to acquire other, more marketable skills or employment.
(2) The extent to which the supported party’s present or future earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment that were incurred during the marriage to permit the supported party to devote time to domestic duties.
(b) The extent to which the supported party contributed to the attainment of an education, training, a career position, or a license by the supporting party.
(c) The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support, taking into account the supporting party’s earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets, and standard of living.
(d) The needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage.
(e) The obligations and assets, including the separate property, of each party.
(f) The duration of the marriage.
(g) The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without unduly interfering with the interests of dependent children in the custody of the party.
(h) The age and health of the parties.
(i) Documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties, including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party.
(j) The immediate and specific tax consequences to each party.
(k) The balance of the hardships to each party.
(l) The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. Except in the case of a marriage of long duration as described in Section 4336, a “reasonable period of time” for purposes of this section generally shall be one-half the length of the marriage. However, nothing in this section is intended to limit the court’s discretion to order support for a greater or lesser length of time, based on any of the other factors listed in this section, Section 4336, and the circumstances of the parties.
(m) The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award in accordance with Section 4324.5 or 4325.
(n) Any other factors the court determines are just and equitable.
SEC. 2. Section 4324.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:
4324.5. (a) In any proceeding for dissolution of marriage where there is a criminal conviction for a violent sexual felony perpetrated by one spouse against the other spouse and the petition for dissolution is filed before five years following the conviction and any time served in custody, on probation, or on parole, the following shall apply:
Ch. 718 — 2 —
(1) An award of spousal support to the convicted spouse from the injured spouse is prohibited.
(2) Where economic circumstances warrant, the court shall order the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the parties to be paid from the community assets. The injured spouse shall not be required to pay any attorney’s fees of the convicted spouse out of the injured spouse’s separate property.
(3) At the request of the injured spouse, the date of legal separation shall be the date of the incident giving rise to the conviction, or earlier, if the court finds circumstances that justify an earlier date.
(4) The injured spouse shall be entitled to 100 percent of the community property interest in the retirement and pension benefits of the injured spouse.
(b) As used in this section, “violent sexual felony” means those offenses described in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (11), and (18) of subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.
(c) As used in this section, “injured spouse” means the spouse who has been the subject of the violent sexual felony for which the other spouse was convicted
Initial Version -Assembly Bill 1522 (AB 1522) reads (with initial revisions in italics):
‘The People of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 782.5 of the Family Code is amended to read:
In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, when a spouse is convicted of attempting to murder the other spouse, as punishable pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 664 of the Penal Code, of soliciting the murder of the other spouse, as punishable pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 653f of the Penal Code, or of a violent sexual felony against the other spouse as defined in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (11), and (15), with the exception of assault with intent to commit mayhem, and (18) of subdivision (c), with the exception of assault with intent to commit mayhem, and paragraph (18) of subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, the injured spouse shall be entitled to an award to the injured spouse of 100 percent of the community property interest in the retirement and pension benefits of the injured spouse.
As used in this section, “injured spouse” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4324.
Sec. 2. Section 4324 of the Family Code is amended to read:
(a) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, when a spouse is convicted of attempting to murder the other spouse, as punishable pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 664 of the Penal Code, of soliciting the murder of the other spouse, as punishable pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 653f of the Penal Code, or of a violent sexual felony against the other spouse as defined in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (11), and (15), with the exception of assault with intent to commit mayhem, and (18) of subdivision (c), with the exception of assault with intent to commit mayhem, and paragraph (18) of subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, the injured spouse shall be entitled to a prohibition of any temporary or permanent award for spousal support, attorney’s fees, except as provided in subdivision (c), or medical, life, or other insurance benefits or payments from the injured spouse to the convicted spouse.
(b) As used in this section, “injured spouse” means the spouse who has been the subject of the attempted murder, the solicitation of murder, or the violent sexual felony for which the other spouse was convicted, whether or not actual physical injury occurred.
(c) A court may, in any hearing regarding child custody, visitation, or child support, subsequent to the spouse’s conviction as described in subdivision (a), order the injured spouse to pay attorney’s fees, under those extraordinary circumstances where the interest of justice and the best interests of the child or children compel that order, if the convicted spouse has already completed the prison term for which he or she was sentenced. The court shall state its reasons for the order in writing or on the record.
(Update 11/8/2012: The new judge denies husband’s request for Crystal to pay husband’s attorneys fees incurred in Crystal’s appeal of the judgment.)
(Update 9/28/2012: California Governor signs bill into law! One person can make a difference.)
(Update 8/28/2012: Assembly concurred, bill sent to Governor to sign.)
(Update 8/24/2012: AB 1522 is unanimously passed by the Senate. Bill goes to Assembly to vote on changes. Governor to sign or veto bill by 9/30/2012)
(Update 8/21/2012: Senate votes this Thursday 8/23/2012 on AB 1522. Bill expected to pass, than, back to Assembly to vote on bill changes. Governor has until 9/30/2012 to sign or veto bill.)
(Update 7/27/2012: Crystal’s recusal motion granted, Judge Pollack is off the case and the case will be assigned to a new judge.)
(Update 7/3/2102: Senate Judiciary Passes AB 1522 with amendment.)
(Update 6/25/2012: Senate Judiciary to hear and vote on AB 1522 on July 3, 2012 at 9 am Room 112 State Capitol in Sacramento.)
(Update 6/7/2012: Ab 1522 headed to State Senate in June 2012. Date to be confirmed.)
(Update 5/11/2012: California Court of Appeal affirmed verdict and upheld ex-husband’s felony conviction. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1970152&doc_no=D059126.)
(Update 4/12/2012: AB 1522 just passed unanimously by the California Assembly. Next stop, State Senate.)
(Update 4/5/2012: AB 1522 up for full Assembly vote on 4/12/2012. Let the California Assembly Know Your Opinion.)
(Update 3/22/2012: Bill with revisions regarding attorney’s fees passed 7 to 1 (opposed by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski-Democrat Alameda)
(Update 3/9/2012 9:55 am: As expected, Jennifer Trayers was sentenced to 16 years, the minimum. The judge commented that the case “exemplified the irrevocable tragedy of domestic violence.”)
Today, Navy wife Jennifer Trayers will be sentenced in a San Diego courtroom for the killing of her navy doctor husband. The jury found her guilty of second degree murder. The prosecution argued it was a premeditated first-degree murder, and the defense argued for manslaughter, a heat of passion (jealous rage) killing after she learned of his affair.
Likely sentence? My guess, although she faces 16 to life, she will likely be sentenced to a lower term possibly the lowest of 16 years.
No prior criminal history, an affair, and her remorse tend to mitigate a longer sentence. And, she did testify unlike most defendants in this circumstance. Yet, the delay in reporting, the email letter to his mistress and the jury’s verdict of murder may call for a longer sentence.
Her sentence is now at the judge’s discretion.
Simply my opinion, what say you?