Mary Winkler has pleaded 'not guilty' in the shooting death of her husband, minister Matthew Winkler although she has reportedly confessed. This brings up the issue of justification, it seems to me. (Where are all those attorney friends of mine when I need them--Dave? Bill?). Her attorney seems to be backing off his statement about a 'dangerous situation' leading to the shooting:
Attorney Farese said media speculation that the case hinged on a "dangerous situation" at the Winkler home was misguided.
"It was taken out of context," he said. "It was only a theory that something was going on in the home that in and of itself was dangerous."
Why exactly he's floating a 'theory' of the crime when he's the defense attorney I'm not exactly sure. He did add this:
The woman's attorney, Steve Farese, also was circumspect about her motive following their first jailhouse conversation.
"I think the accumulations of the pressures of life in and of itself certainly would have some factor in the case," Farese told WAFF-TV in Huntsville, Ala.
Still, 'accumulated pressures of life' don't lead to that.
1 comment:
Justification? I don't follow the question.
Most defedants plead "not guilty" to place themselves in a better plea bargain position no matter the evidence against them.
I have even seen a defendant begin to take a plea during trial (with the jury absent, admit to the offenses, and then, at the last moment, back out. But the trial still continues because it is the state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Post a Comment