Many thanks to the lovely and gracious Pooz, the charming and delightful Minderella-San, and the devilish and beguiling Fulminous for nearly simultaneously reminding me that I've not yet commented on Chante Mallard's trial.

You remember Chante, right?

Of course you do. But just in case it's fuzzy here's a breakdown of the facts in her case. Ms. Mallard, a nurse's aide by profession, was driving home from a party high on extacy and a little drunk. She hit a homeless man with her car with such ferocity as to lodge him in her windshield. So, because she didn't want her mother to find out about her drug use and because she didn't want to get busted for E, she drove over a mile to her home, parked her car with a man in the windshield in the garage, shut the door, apologized to him, and went inside.

She permitted him to bleed to death. Then she called her boyfriend and a female friend to come over and help her cover the incident up. They assisted her in dumping the body in the park. Then they took the bloodied car seats and carpets into the back yard where they burned them. They removed the windshield and disposed of it, and they left the car in the garage, apparently with the intention of making the repairs themselves.

Dum dum dummmmm!

The police found the mangled body and began an investigation. The learned that the victim was a former brick layer who was currently unemployed and squatting at a nearby homeless shelter. He had no real enemies, no real friends, no real family. He didn't have outstanding gambling debts, he had no criminal record to speak of and no unsavory associations. In short, there were no suspects and no leads. The case grew cold.

Four months after the event, Chante found herself at another party. Apparently killing a man wasn't enough to straighten her out, because she was a little messed up on E again. As the party was coming to a close, there was some talk of finding a designated driver, which is of course perfect timing, when Chante volunteered that she couldn't drive because her car was a wreck on account of hitting a homeless man and letting him bleed to death in her windshield. I guess one of the party goers didn't think it was so funny so he got the cops on the horn to report Chante.

Now Chante is on trial for first degree murder. Let's keep in mind that Chante is black, her victim was white (homelessness not withstanding), and she's being tried in TEXAS. Yes, the state which exercises the death penalty more than any other. So, I'm dubious about the concept of a fair trial in Chante's case to begin with, which makes me have this face.

But I have to tell you that if I were given these facts on an exam in law school and asked to determine which charges to bring against her, I would only be able to find facts to support a charge of manslaughter despite the sensational nature of her case.

In order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction for murder one, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chante had the intent to cause the death of another person and following on that intent actually caused the death of that person or a third person. In other words, one must have the conscious objective to end a life.

In my discussions of this case with Tommy, he has told me that he believes Chante's actions fall squarely under the definition of second degree murder. Murder two is the commission of an act that results in the death of another person committed with malice, but without any forethought. In other words, the intent to cause the end of someone's life is still present, but there is no plan for the event. These are heat of the moment crimes.

Manslaughter is the unlawful and intentional killing of a person without malice. There are degrees of manslaughter, just as there are degrees of murder, but they are fairly unimportant here. Manslaughter is an accidental crime.

The problem with the state's case, as I see it, is that they have not presented any evidence indicating that Chante knew the homeless guy and planned to run him over with her car thus ending his life (murder one) or that she was provoked in some way and when she saw him, aimed her car for him with the intent to end his life (murder two). The case they put on dealt primarily with the suffering of the man and the decisions Chante made after the event. This evidence goes to failure to render aid, leaving the scene of a crime, obstruction of justice by attempting to destroy evidence, but it has no relevance as to her intent and therefore it's primary purpose in this trial is to inflame the jury and make them angry enough to throw the book at Chante.

Ok. So at the close of the prosecution's case, it looked pretty bleak for Chante. Both of the people who helped her dispose of the body testified against her. She'd been painted as a drug addict, as a callous monster, as a menace before the jury. But I was still of the opinion that all was not lost.

It seems to me that there is an obvious trial strategy here and that is to reduce the number of years she'll spend in prison as much as possible and stay out of a penalty hearing which includes mention of the death penalty. This is accomplished by admiting what has happened, but hammerimg the intent element in an effort to convince the jury to put their anger about the events subsequent to the death blow aside when rendering their verdict on the homicide. Stand up and scream it was an accident as many times and as loud as is necessary to get the jury to hear you. The best way to do that, of course, is to put a mournful, sorrowful, Chante on the stand to explain that she had been doing drugs, she never meant to hurt anyone, and that she reacted badly to a horrible situation. Get as much evidence before the jury about intent as you can find and then hammer intent, intent, intent in the closing argument. She never intended to kill him, so it can't be murder, it must be manslaughter.

Let me make this perfectly clear. There was a defense to murder one available in this case.

This is why I was shocked to hear about the defense Chante's lawyer put on. It consisted of one witness, a medical examiner, who testified that the victim was probably unconscious by the time she got him to the garage, and it's unlikely he ever regained consciousness. That was it. That was the defense in its entirety. They might as well have held noose tying lessons right there in open court.

This is fucking Texas! I wouldn't be surprised to read the jury foreman was licensed to conceal a weapon and offered to end Chante on the spot with the delivery of the verdict. Texas!

Of course, I'm arm chair quarterbacking here. And I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about the specifics of Texas law. And the indifference she showed after the death blow is shocking and appalling and deserving of punishment. I've been jumping up and down about the horror of her actions since I first heard about them and I make no excuses for her. But goddamn! What was her lawyer thinking?

I fear Chante may be facing a sentence that doesn't fit her crime. Rest assured, friends, I'll be keeping an eye peeled for the verdict.

And until the verdict is announced, I'll be making this face.

Posted at 11:43 a.m.

previously on Sooner � next on Sooner

last five entries

making Sense of the State of the Union -- 2

Making Sense of the State of the Union -- Pt. 1

But I'm Willing to Learn

Rough Draft

Political Action