Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Appeal filed in Larry King case
02.10.2009 2:02pm EST
(Oxnard, California) Attorneys representing the 15-year old accused of killing openly gay teen Larry King are asking an appeals court judge to overturn the trial judge’s refusal to order prosecutors to show how they determined the youth should be tried as an adult.
Last month, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Rebecca Riley rejected a defense motion to get files and documents from the district attorney’s office.Attorney Scott Wippert in appealing the ruling said that without the information he is unable to prepare a proper defense.
In an interview with the Ventura Couunty Star, Wippert said the documents could show whether there was an abuse of discretion or a misuse of authority, which he said would violate McInerney’s right to due process.
Wippert also told the paper that the case would have a major impact on how district attorneys throughout California prosecute tens of thousands of juveniles.
“Nobody has challenged the discretionary power of the district attorney,” said Wippert told The Star. “This case is bigger than any other case. This affects children all over the state.”
It is the latest defense bid to have the case moved to juvenile court. Wippert has previously said there were mitigating circumstances and the teen should not be tried in adult court.
King, 15, often dressed in a feminine manner and told friends that he was gay. He was shot in the head during a morning class at an Oxnard school in February, 2008. More than 20 other students were in the room at the time. McInerney was arrested shortly after the shooting. At the time he was 14.
King died in the hospital after doctors declared him brain dead and his mother agreed to have life-support removed.
In December, a judge ruled that McInerney is competent to stand trial after hearing from a court appointed psychiatrist and a psychologist.
His attorneys sought to have the youth declared developmentally incapable of standing trial. If McInerney had been found not competent, he would have been sent to a mental health facility where he would be treated and held until he was deemed able to stand trial.
In October, Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox said that white supremacist materials had been found by investigators in McInerney’s bedroom.
If convicted as an adult, McInerney faces a sentence of 51 years to life.
let him fry
This is nothing but a delaying tactic. It hasn’t got a snowball’s chance! What I’d really like to know is who is paying this punch of high profile lawyers to get this kid off the hook.
This monster is not serving a life sentence yet?
He is a minor, period. You can’t have it both ways. He should be tried as a minor, because he IS a minor. He is not eighteen. Apply the law correctly people. If he isn’t legal to sleep with, he shouldn’t be legal to try as an adult.
Make a moral argument if you must. But don’t spout accusations of official misconduct without solid proof to back it up. There’s nothing here to suggest Judge Riley did anything improper. She considered the evidence and ruled in accordance with California law.
In California, there are five special circumstances under which a minor may be prosecuted as an adult. McItnerney definitely qualifies under circumstance (E). And you could make a case for (A) and (B) as well.
From California Penal Code Section 192 (d)1:
(A) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor.
(B) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.
(C) The minor’s previous delinquent history.
(D) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor.
(E) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.
Would you mind pointing out which law the judge applied incorrectly?
Lael maybe could have said “equally” instead of “correctly”, but I agree with the sentiment. Either someone’s an adult or they’re not. It’s unfair for the underage criminal to be tried as an adult without being able to live life as one. That’s just bull.
And yes before the hatemail, I believe he should be found guilty and go to a juvenile facility.
Special circumstances… doesn’t every case qualify as special circumstances? Each case is unique. Each life is precious. Each DA tries to go after special circumstance for every single murder by anyone under the age of 18.
Frankly, the issue at hand in the article is about the withholding of the findings by the DA from the defense. That is absolutely applicable. It is not a delaying tactic, it is being responsible to your client. Cases have been overturned in the past for withholding evidence and other documents from either side of a case. This is actually illegal. So, the judge is in fact wrong, if prior precedence has meaning from case to case.
I fail to see why defense should not see the documents and methods used to determine the decision to try a minor as an adult. It is absolutely relevant and important to their case.
John in CA:
A through E are ambiguous and extremely vague. E would apply to any murder without exception given that no one is going to say murder is not without severity and gravity. So, by definition E, every single murder case should automatically be prosecuted as adult, regardless of the actual age of the child involved? It is an excuse, nothing more, to justify prosecuting minors as adults and codified to make it more palatable to the general public. That doesn’t make it right.
I can see a difference between a 17 year old coldly calculating a murder a few days before turning 18 and a younger minor losing it and spontaneously killing someone. The 17 year old in my example should indeed be tried as an adult. Is that distinction actually being made? Somehow I doubt it.
I have read about some as young as 9 years old being tried as adults. There are no circumstances where I can see that as justice or right. If you cannot vote, if you are under guardianship by your parents, if you are unable to work a full time job, why are you considered an adult for the purposes of justice except under extreme circumstances just immediately prior to becoming 18? It is not logical.
“doesn’t every case qualify as special circumstances?”
No. The CPC has laid out very clearly what “special circumstances” actually means: (1) hate crimes, (2) the death penalty, and (3) minors charged with felonies. The vast majority of cases heard in criminal court do not have any special circumstances. You might not like how lawmakers have defined the term. And if you feel that strongly about it, you’re free to vote against the Democrats who’ve controlled the California Legislature since 1970. But I doubt the Republicans would be any better. Regardless, you can’t just substitute what’s in the criminal code with Miriam-Webster in court.
“Frankly, the issue at hand in the article is about the withholding of the findings by the DA from the defense.”
And had you limited your comments to that, I probably would’ve agreed with you. Especially if those records prove the defendant had some sort of medically proven condition (see below). Although the prosecutors will undoubtedly argue that such information doesn’t count as “evidence,” and is, “irrelevant” in any case.
“So, by definition E, every single murder case should automatically be prosecuted as adult, regardless of the actual age of the child involved?”
Typically, the “gravity” part must include an admission from the accused that they understand the seriousness of the charges. The defense will usually argue that the defendant suffers from mental illness or other disabilities that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.
“If you cannot vote, if you are under guardianship by your parents, if you are unable to work a full time job, why are you considered an adult for the purposes of justice except under extreme circumstances just immediately prior to becoming 18?”
Before the 20th century, there was no “juvenile court” system. Everyone went to the same court. As for the age restrictions, they’re largely arbitrary. We created such life-passages and assigned value to them. And we can change them too. Moses didn’t come down from Mt. Sinai with tablets saying “Thou Shalt Not Have Any Adults Before Eighteen.”
After all, you can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21. You can’t run for the House of Representatives (or rent a car in many states) until you’re 25. You can’t become a senator until you’re 30. You can’t enlist in the Army if you’re over 42.
Should we overturn all those rules in the interest of “age equality” too?
John in CA: “No. The CPC has laid out very clearly what “special circumstances” actually means: (1) hate crimes, (2) the death penalty, and (3) minors charged with felonies.”
Number (3) is exactly what I said. Every single murder case by a minor means it is special circumstance by virtue of murder being a felony. Thanks for the clarification. It is DA whim and public opinion that determines how the case is prosecuted.
Digging through CCC and CPC is exhausting. I appreciate you taking the time to do so. Thank you. The last time I needed to pull together information it took me 10 hours to pull together half a page of code I needed just to make sure my kid’s high school could not shut me out (or up). It’s handy to be able to directly point to law and hit them between the eyes with it.
Not only should he be tried as an adult, he should be executed like one as well, but that’s not gonna happen. His defense knows that he is guilty plaion and simple. They know he WILL be found guilty of murder so they are grasping at any straws and excuses they can to spare him the punishment he deserves. He has been found competent to stand trial. Over 20 witnesses SAW him shoot King in the back like a coward. In other words, this trial is nothing more than a show for the sake of justice under the law. He is a murderer and should be dealt with as such.
The good people of California passed some legislation that allows juveniles who commit violent felonies against the person of another and cause serious bodily injury or death to be tried as adults. Now is not the time to be complaining about the law….it has been of the books for years.
It really does not serve the gay community well to take a hard line stance on juvenile justice. He’s a kid and — by every estimation — an extremely disturbed kid. Prosecuting him as a kid is NOT the same thing as letting him “off the hook”!