Murder

April 2, 2015

Illinois Supreme Court Orders New Trial Due to Ineffective Counsel

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Cook County man’s conviction for first-degree murder was overturned, and a new hearing ordered, after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that his defense attorney provided ineffective counsel for failure to object to testimony regarding the defendant’s confession.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Watch any crime procedural on television or in the movies and you’ll no doubt witness repeated cries of, “Your honor, I object!” from attorneys on both sides. While they add dramatic flair to the movies, objections serve an extremely important part of criminal trials. Just like in a basketball game, where the referees call fouls when players violate the rules, objections serve as the attorney’s way of ensuring that the rules of criminal procedure are followed.

In basketball, if the ref fails to call a foul, there’s a lot of grumbling by players, coaches and fans, and maybe the team loses the game over a couple of lousy calls. But in a criminal trial, the defense attorney’s failure to object can result in conviction and imprisonment.

This is what happened to the defendant in People v. Simpson. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the beating death of a man. The conviction was based in large part on videotaped statements of a third party, who told police that he was near the murder scene and that the defendant confessed to committing the crime. At trial, the witness said he remembered talking to the police about the defendant’s statements, but he could not remember what he told them. In fact, when the prosecution would ask him to confirm specific statements he made to the police, the witness could not confirm that he had made them.

Statements made by a witness out of court, which are inconsistent with his current testimony and which were not subject to cross-examination when made, are generally inadmissible at trial as hearsay. That is because attorneys on both sides have the right to cross-examine a witness, and a statement made out of court is not subject to cross-examination. But prior inconsistent statements are admissible if:

The statement is inconsistent with testimony at trial;
The witness is subject to cross-examination, and;
The statement describes an event the witness had personal knowledge about.

In this case, the witness’s statements did not describe an event he had personal knowledge of, and the Illinois Supreme Court made clear that the “personal knowledge” requirement refers to the crime itself, and not personal knowledge of the defendant’s statements, which is what the prosecution argued.

Yet despite the fact that the witness’s testimony was clearly inadmissible under the prior inconsistent statement rule, the defendant’s attorney failed to object. It is the duty of the defense attorney to object to the admission of evidence – the judge makes no objections, he simply rules on them. Failure to object means the evidence is admitted. In this case, the witness’s testimony was instrumental in the defendant’s conviction.

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to prove this, the defendant must prove on appeal that the attorney’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

In overturning the defendant’s conviction, the court noted that it could determine no strategic reason for the defense attorney to have wanted the statements admitted. The court also noted that while other testimony tended to show the defendant’s guilt, the testimony in question was a supposed confession, which generally carries more weight with jurors than other testimony (particularly in this case, where one of the prosecution witnesses had failed to identify the defendant at trial). Without its admission, the court stated that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant. As a result, the conviction was overturned and defendant was granted a new trial.

March 11, 2015

Attempted Murder, Retail Theft Charges against Chicago Man Who Shot at Police

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man was arrested last week and charged with attempted first-degree murder after allegedly firing at two Chicago police officers as they were arresting him for shoplifting. The defendant allegedly fired once, though nobody was injured; he continued to fire not realizing the clip had fallen out.

Attempted First-Degree Murder of Police Officer

A defendant can be charged with attempt of a crime if, with the intent to commit a specific offense, he commits “any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” To be convicted of attempted first-degree murder, the prosecution would need to prove that the defendant intended to actually commit that crime.

First-degree murder requires an intent to “kill or do great bodily harm”, or acting in a manner that creates a “strong probability of death or great bodily harm”, to another. If the prosecution could prove that the defendant in this case fire the officer’s gun with the intent to either kill them or cause them great bodily harm, then he can be convicted of attempted first-degree murder.

Assuming it can be proven that the defendant did purposely grab and fire the officer’s weapon during the arrest, as opposed to the trigger accidentally being pulled in the struggle, it firing due to a malfunction, or the officer actually being the one to fire it, then the prosecution would have the burden of proving intent to kill or harm. Defending against attempted first-degree murder would require arguing for a lesser crime, such as assault. This defense requires convincing the jury that the defendant fired the weapon not with the intent to kill the officers or cause them harm, but instead to scare them, most likely so he could continue to try and make his escape.

Eyewitness testimony as to the direction the weapon was fired during the arrest could help support this defense. If the gun was aimed away from the officer’s, it would tend to show that the defendant did not intend to cause death or great bodily harm, but rather to scare them. A gun aimed away from the officer’s would also disprove the idea that he should have known his actions could result in death or bodily harm (the other elements required to prove first-degree murder), because nobody would expect a gun fired away from a person would cause him harm.

An interesting aspect of this case are in-court statements made by the defendant’s attorney that the defendant is a pastor and was recently honorably discharged from the Army. These actions don’t fit with the idea of a pastor and respected Army veteran. This raises the possibility of several state of mind defenses – perhaps the defendant was suffering from PTSD from his time spent in the Army. It would be worthwhile to have the defendant submit to a psychological evaluation by an independent third-party to determine his mental state, which could possibly negate him having the proper state of mind, or could be used in negotiations with the prosecution to reduce charges.

February 20, 2015

Chicago Woman Charged with Domestic Violence Murder

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago woman was charged with the October domestic violence related murder of her boyfriend. The woman, who stabbed her boyfriend in the chest shortly following what police called a domestic violence altercation, was charged with first-degree murder.

Defense of Domestic Violence Murder Charge

Any murder charge is a serious offense that requires an aggressive defense to avoid the possibility of a lifetime spent in prison. But murders that result from a domestic violence altercation usually come with a unique set of circumstances that mean there are a variety of defense strategies available.

Self Defense

The first line of defense in any violent crime stemming from a domestic violence altercation is self-defense. The defense would explore all of the circumstances leading up to the stabbing to see if the evidence supported the idea that the defendant felt her life was in danger when she stabbed the victim. Evidence that may support this defense would include:

Cuts, scrapes, bruises, sprained or broken bones, defensive wounds, or other evidence that showed that the victim physically attacked the defendant prior to the stabbing;
Testimony from neighbors who overheard the altercation and could testify that the defendant was being attacked;
Evidence that the defendant had physically assaulted the defendant in the past, such as a prior criminal history of domestic violence or past protection orders;
Whether landlines had been cut or the victim’s cell phone otherwise tampered with, to prevent her from calling for help, or;
Evidence showing that the victim had his hands on the knife or another weapon at the time of the stabbing, such as his fingerprints on the knife or another object that could have been used to cause death or serious bodily injury.

If the evidence showed that the defendant feared for her life when she stabbed the victim, it could result in the prosecution dismissing the charges, or in an acquittal from the jury.

Imperfect Self-Defense

Imperfect self-defense, as I have discussed in the past, is when the victim believed she was acting in self-defense, but that belief was unreasonable. If the defendant can prove she acted in imperfect self-defense, then the charge would be dropped to second degree murder.

Much of the same evidence that would be used to prove self-defense would also be used to prove imperfect self-defense. In cases where the victim of domestic violence murdered her batterer, the victim was not in immediate danger of being seriously injured or killed. Instead, it is the past actions of the batterer, coupled with statements made shortly before the murder, that make her reasonably belief that her life is in danger and requires the use of deadly force to protect herself.

For example, the longer a couple is together, the less the need for actual physical violence to keep the victim “in line”. A certain look, or just a few harsh words, from the abuser are enough to let the woman know that she is in danger, even though those same actions would mean nothing to an outside party. So while her actions would seem unreasonable to outsiders, to her they were completely reasonable. Evidence of the couple’s history, including any documented incidences of abuse, could sway the jury to acquit based on self-defense. However, for those jurors who feel that a first-degree murder charge is too much, but an outright acquittal is not punishment enough, a charge of second-degree murder can sometimes be a reasonable compromise for them.

January 29, 2015

Chicago Man Charged with First Degree Murder of Mother

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man was charged with first-degree murder for the stabbing death of his mother recently in the Southwest Side Chicago home they shared with her husband. The defendant was covered in his mother’s blood and allegedly admitted to stabbing her following an argument.

Criminal Confessions and the 5th Amendment

The defendant allegedly confessed to stabbing his mother, telling police he did so because he was angry that she constantly put him down and told him to get a girlfriend. His statement to police indicated that he took a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and replaced it following the killing.

Contrary to what you may think, a confession does not mean the case is a slam-dunk for the prosecution. As I have discussed in prior posts, the 5th Amendment provides criminal suspects protection against self-incrimination. To ensure that right, the police must read a suspect his Miranda rights once he is placed in custody.

Any confession therefore must be carefully scrutinized in light of the Miranda protections. Police actions that may violate the 5th Amendment include:

Failure to read the defendant his Miranda rights;
Failure to provide an attorney if the defendant requests one;
Continuing to interrogate the defendant once he requests an attorney, and;
Attempting to talk to the defendant about the crime after he has met with an attorney, and without the attorney’s permission.

Consideration must also be paid to the manner in which the police conducted the interrogation, and all copies of police transcripts or video tapes of the interrogation, particularly of the alleged confession, must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that the confession was not coerced or made under duress.

If the police violated the 5th Amendment in anyway, or utilized abusive interrogation techniques, the defendant’s confession could be deemed inadmissible in court, and could result in a dismissal or reduction of charges.

Seeking Reduction of Charges in First-Degree Murder

If a review of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s confession indicate that it will be admissible in court, and if the other evidence in the case tends to show that the defendant’s chances of acquittal in court are slim, then the defense moves from seeking an acquittal or dismissal to obtaining a reduction in charges.

In this case, the defendant had large, visible cuts to his hands and face. A review of the medical records by an independent medical expert is needed to determine whether the wounds to the defendant’s face could have been caused by the kitchen knife, or any other knife in the house. An expert forensic analysis of the bloody knife found in the house is also necessary to determine whether the defendant’s blood is on it. These two facts could be consistent with the victim having attacked the defendant first, which could result in a reduction of charges to manslaughter, second degree murder (for imperfect self-defense, where the belief that the use of force was necessary was unreasonable) or allow the affirmative defense of self-defense to be raised.

Because the murder was allegedly committed because of what the defendant described as belittling behavior by the victim, friends and family must be interviewed to determine the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. If there was a history of emotional and verbal abuse, the argument that evening could have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and caused the defendant to lash out at his mother over years of abuse. If this were the case, then an argument could be made that the charges should be reduced to second degree murder, since the defendant acted in the heat of passion.

December 24, 2014

Conviction of Illinois Hate Crime Carries Additional Penalties

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Cook County man was arrested this past October and charged with attempted first-degree murder and hate crimes for allegedly stabbing a 79-year-old African-American woman.

Illinois Hate Crimes

When most people think of a hate crime, they think of an assault upon an African-American, maybe even a lesbian, gay or transgendered individual. But hate crimes under Illinois law may be committed against an individual due to his:

Race;
Color;
Creed;
Religion;
Ancestry;
Gender;
Sexual Orientation;
Physical or mental disability, or;
National origin.

Hate crimes include not only assault and battery, but also:

Theft;
Trespass to residence, vehicle or real property;
Damage to property;
Mob action;
Disorderly conduct, or;
Harassment by telephone or electronic communications.

Hate crimes are a class 4 felony – class 2 if it’s a second offense – and carry with it a minimum of one year in prison. Hate crimes are a class 3 felony if committed in certain locations, such as a school or church. The penalties imposed for conviction of a hate crime are in addition to those imposed for conviction of the underlying offense. The defendant in a hate crime case is charged then not only with the hate crime, but with the assault, battery, or whatever other crime committed against the victim as well.

Defenses Against Hate Crimes

There are two portions of a hate crime defense – defending against the underlying crime, and defending against the hate crime charge. When defending against a hate crime, it is actually not a defense that the victim was not a member of a protected class. For example, if the defendant attacked a man because he thought he was Muslim, but it turned out he was Indian, the mistake as to the victim’s actual ethnicity is not a defense to the charge. It is enough that the defendant thought he was attacking a Muslim.

In order to successfully defend against a hate crime, the defense attorney must prove that the crime was not racially motivated (assuming that he cannot disprove commission of the underlying crime). Just because a crime victim falls into the protected class of victims does not automatically mean it is a hate crime, although the prosecution may attempt to argue otherwise. Proving the crime was not motivated by hatred toward the victim’s race, sexual orientation, religion, or other protected class may include:

Showing a lack of history of any type of racial crime;
Showing that the crime was one of opportunity; for example, you robbed the woman on the street corner because she was there and you needed money, not because she was a woman;
Lack of use of racial, sexual or other slurs against the victim during the commission of the crime, or;
You have a prior history of committing the same offense, and there is no pattern of it being against members of the protected class.

Disproving that the crime was motivated by reasons unrelated to race, religion, gender, or any of the other protected classes will result in the jury being forced to acquit on the hate crime charge.

December 17, 2014

White Chicago Police Officer Set to Stand Trial for Murder of Black Woman

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

In the wake of the police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York and Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, a Chicago police officer is set to stand trial in January on charges of involuntary manslaughter and other felonies in the 2012 off-duty shooting death of an unarmed black woman.

Police shootings happen fairly regularly across the country, and as part of their job to serve and protect officers often kill dangerous suspects. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate that in 2013, there were 461 justifiable homicides by police officers. Some estimate this number to be much higher – at least 1,000 – because not all police departments report their numbers to the FBI for inclusion in the report. So when does murder by a Chicago police officer cross the line from justifiable homicide to murder?

Justifiable Homicide by Chicago Police

There is no special statute protecting Chicago police officers who kill a suspect in the line of duty. Like any other citizen, Chicago police officers must prove that their use of force was justified.

The use of justifiable force, as I have discussed before, is an affirmative defense. This means that the police officer has the burden of proving that his use of force was justified, and not the prosecutor. Under Illinois’ justifiable use of force law, a police officer may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or another person against the victim’s unlawful use of force. However, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm can only be used if the officer has a reasonable belief that he is protecting himself or another person from death or great bodily harm.

It is important to note that the victim’s use of force must be unlawful, in order for force to be justified. This means that a person cannot put you in fear of your life, and then use deadly force against you when you try to protect yourself using force.

How does this translate to real life? Take, for example, the Eric Garner case. Most people do not dispute that he was resisting arrest. But from the video, he appeared to be doing so peacefully, and posed no physical threat to law enforcement. So the argument could be made that the police officer’s use of a banned chokehold was unlawful use of force, since there was no reasonable justification to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

The vast majority of killings by Chicago police officers are ruled justifiable homicides and never brought to trial. The last case of a Chicago police officer facing criminal charges for a shooting death was 17 years ago. Defense in these cases rests entirely on the police officer’s testimony. Eyewitness testimony factors in to some degree, as would any available video. But in the end, the police officer’s testimony regarding his behavior and the victim’s behavior in the moments leading up to the shooting, and the officer’s level of perceived harm, is what the jury will ultimately rely on. And as is shown by the fact that it has been 17 years since the last Chicago police officer was brought to trial, in the vast majority of cases the benefit of the doubt goes to the officer.

November 26, 2014

Three Chicago Men Charged with Murder in Old Town Shooting

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Three Chicago men were charged with murder for the shooting death of a Chicago resident recently. The men are accused of pulling up alongside the victim’s car and opening fire; the victim later died of a gunshot wound to his arm after trying to flee the scene.

Co-Defendants and the Felony Murder Rule

In August I discussed the case of a young Chicago boy who was charged with the murder of his friend, even though the friend was shot and killed by an off-duty Chicago police officer. The officer killed the victim during an attempted armed robbery. The defendant was charged with murder under what is known as the felony murder rule, which allows all persons involved in the commission of a felony to be charged with first-degree murder for any deaths that occur during the commission of the crime.

That same rule may apply to the defendants in this case. At present, they are each being held on charges of murder, though authorities have not yet determined (or have not yet made public) who the shooter was. Eyewitness statements indicate that a passenger was the shooter.

Whether or not the rule would apply in this case depends on if the defendants intended to commit a crime when the shooting occurred. For example, if they were driving around in the middle of the night looking for a person to rob, then they could all be charged with first-degree murder since the victim was killed while they attempted to carry out the robbery.

If, however, they were driving around aimlessly just to pass the time, as teenagers often do, and the driver and the second passenger had no idea that the shooter intended to fire at the victim when they stopped the car, then they have an argument for having the murder charges dismissed or reduced.

Weapons were found in the vehicle when the boys were arrested, but carrying weapons does not prove intent to commit a crime. They could be charged with fleeing the scene, obstruction of justice, or other crimes, but if there is no evidence that they intended to commit a felony, or that they knew the shooter planned to commit a felony, then they cannot be charged with murder under the felony murder rule.

Plea Bargain in Chicago Cases Involving Multiple Defendants

Cases involving multiple defendants offer an increased opportunity to strike a plea deal with the prosecution, especially in murder cases where one person was ultimately responsible for the victim’s death. The co-defendants may be able to offer testimony showing that the shooter had a prior beef with the victim, and that the murder was premeditated. In exchange for such testimony, the prosecution may be willing to reduce the first-degree murder charges against the two co-defendants not involved in the shooting, because the testimony raises the probability of winning a first-degree murder conviction against the shooter.

In these cases, having a criminal defense attorney who has established good working relationships with Chicago prosecutors is vital.

November 21, 2014

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Defendant’s Waiver of Miranda

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The Illinois Appellate Court recently upheld the admissibility of statements the defendant made to police regarding the death of his wife, and affirmed his conviction for involuntary manslaughter. The court ruled that the defendant’s statements were admissible, even though they were made after he had invoked his right to speak with an attorney, finding that the defendant had voluntarily waived the rights.

People v. Stolberg: Right to Waive Miranda

I have talked before about the Miranda warnings, the rights law enforcement officers must read to every criminal suspect who is taken into custody. Every defendant has the right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney. Once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, either by refusing to speak or requesting to speak with an attorney, all police questioning must stop. If police continue to question the suspect despite his invocation of his Miranda rights, any statements the defendant later makes are inadmissible.

The court in Stolberg, however, upheld an exception to law enforcement’s prohibition against continued questioning following a defendant’s invocation of Miranda. If a defendant “knowingly and intelligently” waives the right he has already invoked, the police may continue questioning.

In Stolberg, the defendant was questioned in connection with his wife’s death. During the initial interrogation he invoked his right to speak with an attorney, at which point the interrogation rightly ceased. As he awaited transfer to the Mundelein Police Department, the defendant asked why nobody was talking to him, at which point he was informed it was because he had invoked his right to an attorney, and officers were therefore legally prohibited from discussing the case with him any further.

The defendant then told the officers that if he could speak with his mother, he would talk to the police. After again being read his Miranda rights – and confirming that he could end the interview at any time by once again requesting to speak with an attorney – the defendant freely discussed the circumstances surrounding his wife’s death.

On appeal the defendant move to suppress his statements to police, arguing that they were inadmissible since had had initially requested an attorney. The court disagreed, ruling that based on all of the circumstances, the defendant had initiated further conversations with the police and had “knowingly and intelligently waived the right that he had invoked.” His statements to the police were therefore admissible, and his conviction for involuntary manslaughter was upheld.

While Stolberg shows that it is possible for police to continue to question a criminal suspect who has invoked his Miranda rights, the exception is quite limited. As the court makes clear, waiving the rights that had been invoked requires a knowing and intelligent waiver. In reaching its decision, the court relied in part on an earlier case, People v. Outlaw, where the defendant had similarly invoked his right to an attorney after police asked for his cooperation. He then asked police what “cooperation” would entail and, after receiving an explanation, agreed to cooperate and withdrew his request for an attorney.

In both cases, it was clear that the defendants had initiated further conversation with law enforcement after invoking their right to counsel, and they understood what continued cooperation with police would entail. A simple statement of, “Okay, I’ll talk to you,” would likely be insufficient to justify continued police questioning, unless other circumstances showed that the suspect clearly understood what he was doing by waiving his previously invoked rights.

November 7, 2014

Chicago Man Charged with Murder While Out on Bond for Sexual Assault

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man out on bond for a sexual assault charge was arrested recently for an unrelated murder. The defendant, who is accused of raping three girls last year along with eight other men, allegedly shot two men on Chicago’s west side; one of the men died at the scene, while the other suffered a gunshot wound to the arm.

Chicago Defense of Unrelated Crimes

This case is a criminal defense attorney’s nightmare – a client, out on bond, gets arrested for committing a second crime. And in this case, the second charge is worse than the first. But it does raise a variety of possible defense tactics, whether it is the same attorney representing the defendant on both charges, or if the defendant has one attorney for the sexual assault charge and one for the murder charge.

Of course, the typical defense against both crimes would be present here. Defense against the sexual assault charge would include:

Mistaken identity;
Lack of DNA evidence tying the defendant to the sexual assault;
Consensual sex, if DNA evidence is present;
The defendant was forced to participate in the sexual assault by the other participants, under threat of great bodily harm (committing a crime to prevent injury is not a true defense, but may result in a lesser sentence due to mitigating circumstances), or;
The victims fabricated the story in retaliation for some unknown slight, or because they were later embarrassed to have consented to sex group sex.

Defense against the murder charge would include:

Mistaken identity;
The defendant was not the one who fired the gun (this would require ballistics analysis by a team of forensic experts); or
The defendant fired in self-defense (if it can be proven he was the one who fired the gun).

But, assuming the prosecution has enough evidence to take both cases to trial, the two pending cases give the criminal defense attorney leverage in negotiations to enter into a plea agreement or to have the charges reduced.

The defendant is one of nine men allegedly involved in the 2013 rape of three women. In a gang rape, it is likely that one of the men was the ring leader; there may be one or more men who have committed prior sexual assaults that the police have not linked them too. If the defendant can help the prosecution bolster its case against other men involved in the rape, or if he has knowledge of any unsolved sexual assaults any of the defendants may have been involved in, the defense attorney may be able to strike a deal with the prosecution for a reduced sentence or a reduction in charges in either the murder case, sexual assault case, or both.

Likewise, the criminal defense attorney can leverage the defendant’s testimony in the murder case to seek a reduced sentence in either the sexual assault case, the murder case, or both. If the co-defendant in the murder case was actually the one who pulled the trigger, and the defendant is willing to testify to that, thus allowing the prosecution to gain a conviction on heightened charges, the prosecution may be willing to strike a deal.

It is always the goal of any criminal defense attorney to achieve an outright dismissal of charges, or to obtain an acquittal in court, for his client. But when the evidence shows that the defendant is likely to be convicted, an experienced criminal defense attorney knows when to use any leverage available to help his client win a reduction in charges or a reduced sentence.

October 14, 2014

Chicago Man Arrested in Cold Case Murder

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man was arrested last week in connection with the 2009 disappearance and murder of his girlfriend. The woman disappeared in April 2009 after last being seen with the defendant. Here whereabouts were unknown until recently, when a 911 call to the Dolton Police Department reported a body in Little Calumet River. An autopsy positively identified the victim and determined the cause of death to be strangulation.

Defense of Cold Case Murder

Cold case murders are challenging for the prosecution – the passage of time causes both evidence and witness memories to fade. But these challenges are positives to the defense, as it makes it easier to cast reasonable doubt on the defendant’s guilt. Defense in these types of cases would involve attacking the credibility of both witness statements and any forensic evidence found in the case.

In cases such as this, where the victim was last seen with the defendant, the prosecution will attempt to persuade the jury that this fact implicates the defendant in her disappearance. But with no other evidence linking the defendant to the victim, this eyewitness testimony has little value and does not prove that the defendant was responsible for her death. It only proves that they were seen together. The defendant and the victim may have parted ways after they were last seen together, with the victim later being attacked by an unknown third-party.

Cause of death would also need to be examined by forensic experts hired by the defense. The coroner listed cause of death as strangulation. If the death was recent, we would attempt to determine if any marks left on the victim’s neck were consistent with the size and shape of the defendant’s hands. The passage of time makes this type of evidence unlikely, but it is still something that the defense would need to examine.

If the body was deteriorated to the point that no skin was left to examine, forensic experts may be able to determine the amount of force that was needed for the victim to be strangled, and from there estimate the approximate height and weight of the murderer. This evidence may also help to exonerate the defendant.

Forensic examination may also show that there is a possibility that damage to the neck occurred following death. Perhaps the victim was not a victim of murder. Instead, she may have committed suicide by jumping into the river, and her body then became tangled in some type of debris that could have caused injuries consistent with strangulation. This evidence would also exonerate the victim.

DNA evidence in this case would not be indicative of the defendant’s guilt. The two were dating, so one would expect to find his DNA on her. But if DNA of any unknown party was found on the victim, those persons would need to be identified in order to determine whether they could have been responsible for her death.

The defense would also look into whether there was anybody with cause to harm the victim. Did she – or perhaps the defendant – have a bitter ex-partner? Could she have been involved in drugs or some other illicit activity that led to her death? Could the defendant or the victim’s family have been involved in these activities, and she was killed by to send them a message? The backgrounds of the victim, the defendant and her close family and friends would all need to be considered to determine whether there are any other possible suspects. Continue reading