April 24, 2013

"In a surprise move, the defense in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has rested without calling a single witness."

"The news comes on the heals of a clarification by Judge Jeffery P. Minehart about a mix-up in the dismissal of one of the murder charges yesterday."

It's all in the closing arguments. What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?

137 comments:

Tank said...

It's legal to kill unborn babies, and a one hour old baby is not any different than a minus one hour old baby.

It's the Amanda Marcotte/just a blob of cells argument.

Tim said...

"What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?"

Easy.

"Under Roe v. Wade, what difference, at this point, does it make?

CDC estimates 50 million abortions in the US since 1973.

What difference, at this point, does it make?"

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

"heals"?


Roger J. said...

To your question, Professor--were I lawyer, and thank Gaia I am not, I would not present a defense of the indefensible. I would I hope I could make my point in my summary to jury (or whatever the hell it is called).

Roger J. said...

Much more interesting to me will be the Judge's charge to the jury.

The Drill SGT said...

Heels?


or is this a Doctor who cuts off little healees pun?

Matthew Sablan said...

Move for a mistrial and claim the bloody table and other props were overly prejudicial. That's really all I've got, and even then, I think I'm making that motion up.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

I do appreciate commentary from the JD types. Thank you all.

Bender said...

Often it is the case that the defense does not call a witness because there is no one good to call. Not even any expert witness that they've paid to say that these babies were not alive. It comes down to a "they didn't prove their case" argument. Which is all well and good, but most people like to base their decision on more than something as uncertain as reasonable doubt.

Bender said...

And can we dispense with the "he might receive the death penalty" talk. It isn't going to happen. Never was going to happen. It was always an over-the-top hammer used by the prosecution to try to enhance their case.

Renee said...

If euthanasia was legal in the state, that would be my defense.



Renee said...

A baby born under 26 weeks is limited in its survival rates, and many parents at times choose perinatal hospice over aggressive measures.

A child born under 26 weeks, whether preterm labor or abortion, could be perinatal hospice? Just throwing that out there.

Strelnikov said...

Yeah, that's quite a surprise.

Carol said...

Ugh, reminds of law school. I always got stuck arguing the other side.

I hated that part.

Strelnikov said...

Prediction: Defense counsel will argue burden of proof issues only.

n.n said...

Your Honor. Our society has seen fit to arbitrarily discriminate against men and women based on their age or stage of development, for reason of preserving wealth, improving welfare, and for matter of convenience.

Not only have "decent" men and women chosen to place a higher priority on their material, physical, and egoistic well-being; but, they also support arbitrary discrimination against all people based on their skin-color and other incidental features.

The defense suggests that treating individuals as interchangeable implies that no lives have in fact been lost.

The defense further suggests that treating individuals as disposable commodities, at anytime during their evolution from conception to grave, implies that no lives have in fact been lost.

The defense requests that the court find that the "massacre" committed under the watchful eye of the state's licensed abortionist is in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of our degenerate law and culture.

The defense requests that all charges against our client be dropped, that all statements of slander and libel be publicly withdrawn, and that our client be fully compensated for the business he lost during this mock trial.

Your Honor. The defense rests its case.

Herb said...

wow clicked the link, cant unsee that now. pretty graphic images. I was already disgusted with the guy, but I didnt need to see that.

ricpic said...

The defense will play the racist card. Watch. It doesn't exist? They'll find it.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

It's all in the closing arguments. What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?

"I say abortion NOW, abortion toMORrow, abortion forEVer."

...or...

"I didn't want them punished with a baby."

...or...

"Don' know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies."

traditionalguy said...

Gosnell is using the same type of argument as the Canadian Jihdists: The court has no power over an abortionist who has higher priest hood appointed by God Democrats with the overarching moral authority to save pregnant women from ruining their lives with horrible motherhood duties.

Michael K said...

What were the arguments that Senator Obama used to vote against the bill in Illinois that would have required efforts at saving born-alive failed abortion babies ? That should work.

Methadras said...

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury. You should not and cannot convict my client of these heinous charges against him because he was acting faithfully under his medical charge and training. Where there some lapses in training and the use of unqualified personnel? Yes, but it was those personal under his tutelage that abused their positions to commit these crimes, not Dr. Gosnell, who has performed, for many years, a service to his community. There is no proof that Dr. Gosnell commited these crimes under the definitions set forth by the court and even now as I make these arguments to you, the Judge has ordered that several of these charges be dropped due to the estimation of viability towards those fetuses to begin with. I say to you that they all fell under those definitions and based on that, my client, Dr. Gosnell is not guilt of the charges before him and that you should render that same judgment. If you were a panel of doctors listening to these very proceedings would you have a different point of view. I make the argument that you would. These are medical procedures. Yes, they are undesirable, and yes, they can be distasteful to say the least, but they are medical procedures nonetheless and these women that came to Dr. Gosnell sought him out because they believed he could help them with these issues.

Set aside your personal prejudices for a moment about the process of abortion and look at it from a different point of view from that of a medical procedure. If you needed something done or if you had a medical issue that needed to be solved who would you go to?

I'll just end it here. This would be the direction I would take the argument in. The rest I devalue piece by piece. As long as I can insert any seed of doubt and try to twist the perceptions of the jury from murder to a medical procedure, I think Gosnell would have a tiny small chance of a hung jury.

Personally, I would pour gasoline on him and set him a blaze only to put him out shortly thereafter and do it again and again, and again.

Skyler said...

What would I argue if he were my client?

It is too horrible to contemplate that I would ever be called on to defend such a man.

Saint Croix said...

I would argue that the prosecution has been highly selective and biased.

None of the mothers are being prosecuted for murder. They paid Dr. Gosnell to terminate their pregnancies, and he did so. So if this is a crime, why aren't they being prosecuted?

I would call as expert witnesses late-term abortionists like Dr. Carhart, and have them explain--in graphic detail--how they abort pregnancies. I would hammer the point home that what Dr. Gosnell did is not very different from what happens in abortion clinics all the time. A matter of inches.

I would argue this is a political prosecution, that the law is a muddle, and that Dr. Gosnell had a good faith belief that what he was doing was legal. And this prosecution is happening because pro-lifers want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I would subpoena Justice Ginsburg and get her up on the stand and ask her all about the Supreme Court laws on the subject. I would jump up and down and make a stink about how the big fish are responsible for this mess, while a little fish is facing the death penalty.

In general I would fight hard against the demonizating of my client, and try to put his actions within Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. I would put the Supreme Court on trial.

And I would say Dr. Gosnell had no intent to kill Ms. Mongar. As to the babies he did kill, the Supreme Court defined these babies as outside the law.

I would subpoena the Planned Parenthood lady, I would subpoena President Obama, I would subpoena anyone who has ever said it's a constitutional right to terminate premature babies outside the birth canal.

Why should these government officials get to hide while my client gets the chair?

edutcher said...

Your honor, if the Obamas had...

Saint Croix said...

"demonizating" might not be a word. But that won't slow me down!

Kevin said...

I'd say it's culture and racism to blame. Gosnell was told by the racist culture that black babies don't count, so he just went with it. Society's fault.

On a Philadelphia jury? Why not give it a whirl.

Astro said...

Justifiable homicide? No wait, that might not work.

'We throw ourselves on the mercy of the court"? Mmm, no.

"You can't handle the truth!" Winner.

Seeing Red said...

He blew off PP to raise money in TX (& the fertilizer plant memorial) shuuurrrreeeee.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Apparently this trial made old Barry Choomgang skip his Planned Parenthood fundraiser.

Jay said...

What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?

That Planned Parenthood has successfully argued in multiple federal court cases that what Kermit did was "health care"

Note:
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. Like the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, it concluded the absence of a health exception rendered the Act unconstitutional

Said act was the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Oh and:

Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician and, of course, on the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development.

We know what Gosnell's preferences were.

What is all the fuss about? He was just doing what Planned Parenthood & President Obama believe to be a medical procedure.

Moose said...

I'd give him a gun and leave him in a room by himself.

Andy Freeman said...

> None of the mothers are being prosecuted for murder. They paid Dr. Gosnell to terminate their pregnancies, and he did so. So if this is a crime, why aren't they being prosecuted?

The prosecution's theory is that Gosnell didn't perform abortions, he induced birth and then killed the result.

The mothers presumably thought that they were getting abortions. If so, they weren't paying for murder.

In other words, pregnancies can end in a number of ways, only some of which are criminal.

Saint Croix said...

Planned Parenthood has abandoned Dr. Gosnell, and Obama has abandoned Planned Parenthood.

This whole thing stinks of cover-up. Does it not?

The jury has had its eyes awakened by brutal photographs of aborted babies. Photographs pro-lifers have been trying to get into the media for 40 years!

Just think of all the abortion doctors who could be prosecuted--just like Gosnell--for killing babies. Could we not find horrible photographs that look just like infanticide? Of course!

Shall we play spot the abortion?

Yet in this murder prosecution against Dr. Gosnell, for the first time photographs of dead infants are making their way into the media. So we say "Monster!" about Gosnell, when what he does is little different from what happens all the time.

Why does the Supreme Court get to write about "decapitation" and "dismemberment" and then, when a doctor is prosecuted for decapitating and dismembering, all the authorities get to run and hide?

n.n said...

Kevin:

The white babies received first-rate abortions. The black babies suffered a disparate outcome. Some of the black babes survived, and were summarily re-aborted. While other black babies enjoyed affirmative action and the same efficient outcome as the white babies.

Lem said...

The defense will play the racist card. Watch. It doesn't exist? They'll find it.

The OJ defense faced what seemed, at the time of the beginning of the trial, as insurmountable odds of getting an acquittal.

And so it is here, in this case.
So, the question is can the lawyers afford to go to that bag of tricks one more time?

Its a long shot... the OJ defense was a gallimaufry of race, reasonable doubt abuse and outright jury nullification.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...

Wait a minute... 5 minute recess your honor...

Is this a jury trial?

Your honor, the defense was prepared for a jury trial... the defense requests a continuance in light of being unprepared.

If this is a trial where the judge is also serving as the jury.... The best thing that the defense has done is to not waste the Judges time with... you know... the stuff juries are known for eating up in California... And hope that he will take that (somehow) into account at sentencing.

Lydia said...

Gosnell's lawyer has already called the trial "an elitist, racist prosecution".

Anyone here know the racial/ethnic composition of the jury?

n.n said...

Does anyone else think this discussion is surreal?

What would the verdict be if the aborted baby's name was Barack Obama, Harry Reid, or, perhaps, Nancy Pelosi?

Familiarity breeds empathy.

traditionalguy said...

If on the jury I would propose a compromise verdict: He gets the sentence that Michael Vick got for hurting some dogs.

That at least brings human children in the Obama years up to the status of dogs.

Roger J. said...

It appears that most aborted babies were black--so at this point what difference does it make? /sarc

n.n said...

Leaders from Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation said that Gosnell's abortion clinic was an affront to high-quality, safe abortion clinics who operate under proper regulations across the country.
-- Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell Condemned by Pro-Abortion Rights Groups

What affront? Just because Gosnell operated with less efficiency than other abortionists, doesn't mean that the outcome was materially different. The outcome was precisely the same! One less Barack Obama, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. What exactly are the pro-abortion/choice advocates arguing?

"an elitist, racist prosecution,"

Perhaps not racist, other than white babies were aborted more efficiently than black babies; but it is certainly elitist. Gosnell is in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of our degenerate law and culture. He fully meets the standards set forth by the community he serves.

With "diversity" we are interchangeable. With "rights" we are disposable. With "progress" we are dysfunctional and degenerate.

Saint Croix said...

The prosecution's theory is that Gosnell didn't perform abortions, he induced birth and then killed the result.

You're describing a Carhart abortion.

The legal technicalities between what Gosnell did and what other abortion doctors do is slim-to-none. A matter of inches.

And he's being prosecuted with the help of awful photographs, photographs that we hide when it comes to "regular" abortion.

I would argue the photographs are prejudicial. The photographs make his abortions seem far worse than "ordinary" abortions, but that's only because none of us get to see the photographs of "ordinary" abortions.

Why does the media not want to report on this case?

The media is afraid that Gosnell's abortions are awfully similar to those Planned Parenthood abortions.

And as far and the gruesome and upsetting photographs are concerned, there's no damn difference. Can you tell?

Gosnell is being prosecuted on a technicality and he will be convicted because of the gruesome reality of what many abortions actually look like.

Aridog said...

Roger J. said...

Much more interesting to me will be the Judge's charge to the jury.

Judge [to Jury]: All y'all know yore duty, see...deliberate long enough to be convincing then hang this fucker like a raggedy flag.

furious_a said...

What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?

"And, in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of the jury...A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy...Ayyyyyyy."

Saint Croix said...

I actually think Gosnell should be convicted of murder--the born/unborn distinction, while arbitrary, is also quite clear. And he (apparently) violated that rule.

Nonetheless, there are a lot of strong arguments to make.

For instance, which would be easier to prove, that Dr. Gosnell was a sloppy abortionist, or a serial killer who murdered babies against the will of the moms?

That's something else I would do as a defense attorney, put the moms on the stand and ask them about terminating their babies. I would force them to admit they wanted it to happen. I would ask them why they didn't go to the police.

This murder prosecution is highly unusual, because the authorities have dehumanized these babies, and Gosnell was so sloppy and careless that he veered over into murdering newborns. But the way you fight back is to emphasize "sloppy" and make crystal clear that your client was an abortion doctor, doing abortions under Roe v. Wade.

mccullough said...

Saint Croix,

There's nothing to stop his defense from putting on photos of legal abortions and showing the similarities. He could also have someone explain an intact D&E procedure.

Jay said...

What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?

I would come out in full Jackie Chiles regalia and start sputtering about be mortified and stupefied!

Saint Croix said...

It's very likely his defense counsel is pro-choice, and it hasn't occurred to him to put the unindicted co-conspirators (a.k.a. the moms) on the stand. Nor is he putting other abortionists on the stand, or Dr. Gosnell.

It seems he's putting all his eggs on the "you haven't proven that these babies were born" basket. That's a rather limited, legal technicality defense.

If any case called for a big, "put the system on trial" defense, it would be this one. All you have to do is convince one of those jurors that Roe v. Wade is under attack.

And I really don't understand the reluctance to put other late-term abortion doctors on the stand. These guys really do kill newborns all the time. Subpoena them! Get them to plead the fifth!

You definitely need some expert to testify about partial-birth abortion, and to comment on the photographs and how that is a normal part of abortion practice.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Saint Croix has made here every defense argument that makes even minimal sense (well done!), and it's still a hopeless case.

Saint Croix said...

There's nothing to stop his defense from putting on photos of legal abortions and showing the similarities. He could also have someone explain an intact D&E procedure.

Except he didn't do any of that!

This is the roll-over-and-play-dead defense.

Maybe he's pro-choice and his whole worldview has been shattered and he's incapable of coherent thought. I haven't seen any of his cross exams, so I won't comment on his competence. But I am not at all impressed with the "no defense" ploy. Doesn't work in basketball, or murder trials.

mccullough said...

1. He thought the each woman's health was in jeopardy and so he performed these late-term abortions. The judge will instruct you that late term abortions are not only legal, but that women have a constitutional right to them when their health is in danger from the pregnancy.

2. Dr. Gosnell doesn't take out ads in the yellow pages or on billboards. These women were referred to him by competent health care professionals that Dr. Gosnell relied on.

These other health care professionals would not have referred these women for a late term abortion if their health was not in danger.

The state hasn't charged one of these people. Not one, for referring these women to Dr. Gosnell.


3. These are very difficult procedures. The mother's health is the utmost concern.

4. Given the emotional difficulty of these procedures, it is hard, very hard, to find other people to help him perform this difficult medical procedure.

Who wouldn't rather work in the labor and delivery ward or the thousands of other jobs in the health care profession.

This is a gut-wrenching procedure. But it is a necessary procedure for some women.

He trained these assistants the best he could. They were and are good people. None of them have been charged with murder.

But some of them made mistakes. And Dr. Gosnell made mistakes.

But you shouldn't charge a doctor for murder because he made mistakes. And you cannot convict Dr. Gosnell for making mistakes.

You cannot convict him because you disagree he should have helped women with health problems have late-term abortions.

You cannot convict him because you think he should have hired or trained his staff better to perform this difficult procedure.

This difficult procedure that was necessary.

Pastafarian said...

I'd have an abortion doctor describe what a legal abortion consists of; and I'd point out how similar it is to what Gosnell has done here -- it's just that the snipping and dismemberment is done within the womb rather than outside in the light of day.

And if he has a jury similar in collective IQ and prejudice to OJ's jury, I'd come up with some sort of rhyming catch phrase, like: If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit. Because if it rhymes, it must be true. And I'd point out that he's black, in case the (presumably mostly black) jury hadn't noticed, and I'd regale them with stories of his suffering at the hands of white men attempting to keep him down.

Prediction: He'll get off with probation, maybe 6 months in a low-security facility max.

Saint Croix said...

Saint Croix has made here every defense argument that makes even minimal sense (well done!), and it's still a hopeless case.

Yeah, I'd put up the mothers, and they'd start crying, and I'd be like, "holy shit why did I do that?"

n.n said...

Saint Croix:

If the defense is in fact pro-choice, and they represent their client in bad faith or with less than a full commitment (e.g. placing their "choice" before the rights of their client), could he be released on the grounds of a mistrial? Would double jeopardy limit further prosecution for the allegations brought forth in this trial?

tim maguire said...

The Gosnell case has always been about the fictitious "line" between abortion and infanticide. It's awfully risky to try and make the jury admit that abortion is infanticide, but I think that's what he has to go with

At the time these children were born, the abortion procedure was already in progress. It would be unreasonable, unfair to abortion providers, and threatening to the rights of the pregnant woman to change the legal classification of the fetus in the middle of the procedure.

I think his best bet is somewhere around there--argue that the classification cannot be changed mid-procedure.

mccullough said...

n.n.

That's called ineffective assistance of counsel. If his counsel was deficient and there's a reasonable probability that but for that deficiency he would have been acquitted, then he gets a new trial.

That takes years to litigate in collateral proceedings.

Lem said...

Ok, now that we have a jury, the defense is ready to proceed.

You honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

I'm not going to stand here and pretend that my client did not discharged his duties as a doctor in less than precarious conditions... indeed, some of the instruments and accoutrements of his medical practice look like they belong in a museum and not in an abortion clinic.

But that is not what the prosecution is charging my client with... ladies and gentlemen... the prosecution - right there (point to them)... ladies and gentlemen is charging my client of murder.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... I'm also not going to pretend to lecture you on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade...
The Supreme Court of the United State, the highest court on the land has concluded that the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy is hers and hers alone... not her doctor not her priest. Suffice it to say that the political forces arrayed against a woman's right to choose are vehemently at play in this case (behind the scenes) just as much as they were on that fateful day when millions of women were declared free once and for all to choose for themselves whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury... make no mistake... the prosecution of my client is nothing but an attempt by an overzealous prosecution, designed in the hallways of the power brokers of this country to send women back to the time of the back alleys and wire hangers.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury... I don't feel no ways tired, I've come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me...

Ahem.. (drink of water)

Ladies and gentleman of the jury... Ask yourselves, why this man? out of all the thousands of abortion doctors out there... Why? To hear the prosecution tell it, you would think my client was in the Guinness book of world records for performing a service he is not even that well compensate for.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury...
I ask you to look at this man, a family man, a church going, God fearing man, look at him very carefully and ask yourselves why him? out of all the doctors out there, preforming abortions, every single day, why my client? What is it that is so particular about my client that the prosecution has mistakenly deemed wrong about him?

Ladies and gentleman of the jury... I don't want to burden you much longer than what is absolutely necessary, but before I let you go I will just ask you to take that question... why him... with you and give it some thought. The life of my client may very well depend on the answer you are about to give.

I thank you honor and I thank the members of the jury for listening.

Saint Croix said...

Gosnell's attorney is Jack Mcmahon, who used to be the D.A. in Philly.

You can see him on youtube, arguing how prosecutors should pick jurors. It's a pretty appalling speech.

David said...

"What would you argue if Gosnell were your client?"

Legal ethics would prevent me from accepting him as my client. He is entitled to my unreserved skill and loyalty in his defense. No way I could provide that.



Saint Croix said...

could he be released on the grounds of a mistrial?

yes

Would double jeopardy limit further prosecution for the allegations brought forth in this trial?

no

Saint Croix said...

mistrial is a do-over

Saint Croix said...

at least if the defense is the screw-up

Bob Ellison said...

If he's acquitted or gets off with a light sentence, the white, abortion-hating racists will riot in the streets of the city of brotherly love. For years, philosophers will ask how it was possible that we missed the rift between black, abortion-loving people of good will and white, abortion-hating racists. Can't we all just get along?

Saint Croix said...

I haven't practiced law in a decade but I think that's right.

David said...

But if required to defend him, I would argue that it's his body and he can do what he wants to with his body. In this case he wanted to use his body to make money by killing young children who were struggling for life.

The little nippers probably would have not survived anyway, right?

Fred Drinkwater said...

Many moons ago, an coworker came back to work after doing a long stretch of jury duty. He explained the defense attorney's key tactic at closing, and I think it could be used here, too.
He got up in front of the jury, pointed to his client, and said,
"Ecce homo."

Sorun said...

Closing argument: Abortionists should get a "5 second rule" for babies born alive. It isn't born until it's been born for five seconds.

Unknown said...

I would like to see photographs of the jurors before I script my summation.

Revenant said...

Saint Croix has made here every defense argument that makes even minimal sense

No, he hasn't. The obvious argument the defense will try -- that the defense has been setting up all along -- is that the infants Gosnell is charged with murdering were already dead or dying when they were delivered.

He doesn't need to subpoena any of Croix's political bugaboos. He doesn't even need to claim this is a political prosecution (although he'll probably claim that, too). He just needs to point out that the people who have testified that the infants were definitely alive are people who have cut deals with the prosecution. He'll probably play the race and politics cards too, of course.

n.n said...

Saint Croix:

Thanks.

So, a double jeopardy situation would not exist unless he is acquitted, right?

mccullough:

A mistrial may be an ideal outcome. With the passage of time, the circumstances and gravity of the crime will be forgotten and diminish, and the abortion business will remain profitable.

After all, what difference at this point does it make, right? What is the statute of limitation for press coverage and public outrage? Around several months. Perhaps one year. The setup and prosecution of another trial would easily exceed the threshold of public consciousness, especially when it is not favored by the fourth estate.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Saint Croix wrote:
"Just think of all the abortion doctors who could be prosecuted--just like Gosnell--for killing babies. Could we not find horrible photographs that look just like infanticide? Of course!

Shall we play spot the abortion?"


Who would have thought that a clump of cells would look so much like a baby.

Saint Croix said...

So, a double jeopardy situation would not exist unless he is acquitted, right?

Right. If it's a hung jury, they can prosecute him again.

SteveR said...

We're so sorry Uncle Kermit, but we haven't done a bloody thing all day

Renee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Renee said...

@ Sorun

"Closing argument: Abortionists should get a "5 second rule" for babies born alive. It isn't born until it's been born for five seconds."

Like when they harvest organs, before you're really dead, that's ok.

Just Before Organ Harvesting, Comatose Patient Recovers:
The survival of an accident victim diagnosed as ‘brain dead’ triggers an end-of-life debate in Denmark.

Inga said...

Brain death is not the same thing as comatose. The Catholic church says brain death is death.

Saint Croix said...

The obvious argument the defense will try -- that the defense has been setting up all along -- is that the infants Gosnell is charged with murdering were already dead or dying when they were delivered.

It seems to me you would call a medical expert if you want to argue the babies were already dead when they were stabbed.

And why would anybody stab a dead baby?

For that matter, why stab a baby who is dying?

That argument might be a winner, if we had a different set of facts. What if Dr. Gosnell's clinic was filled with dead babies with no visible signs of violence? That would be a much harder prosecution. After all, people die in hospitals all the time.

But that defense argument doesn't work in this case, since these babies have, obviously, been the victim of a stabbing.

He just needs to point out that the people who have testified that the infants were definitely alive are people who have cut deals with the prosecution.

And the medical experts who claimed the babies were viable, what about them?

And how come the defense didn't call any medical experts?

From the indictment...

According to an ultrasound, the 17-year old mother, “Sue,” was 29.4 weeks pregnant. Gosnell induced labor and sedated the mother, who delivered a baby boy. Cross saw Baby Boy A breathe and move. Cross told us the baby was 18 to 19 inches long and nearly the size of her own newborn daughter, who was six pounds, six ounces at birth. Even Gosnell commented on Baby Boy A’s size, joking “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

That is Baby A, and that crime has not been dimissed. The defense attorney has no witness to argue the baby was non-viable, nor would he be able to find one, since that's a blatant lie.

Alex said...

He murdered the witnesses.

Inga said...

Renee, your article is misleading, in other reports it was revealed she was never declared brain dead.

Saint Croix said...

And you're not actually allowed to murder newborns, even if it's your medical judgment that they are non-viable.

Same reason you're not allowed to murder terminal cancer patients.

The viability doctrine only applies to the unborn.

gutless said...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,a women's body and her choice are hers alone in consultation with her god and my client. Besides which, racism, no fair, abba daba, look, a squirrel!, wad ya talk?, don't penalize compassion for the less fortunate, Rosa Parks,"If the man's a shit, you must acquit", Martin Luther King, institutional racism, the bitch set me up, my client will spend the rest of his life looking for the real abortionist, a Black man can't catch a break, it's a Black thang. You wouldn't understand, the prosecuted is a big poopie and to summarize... shut up. Thank you for your kind attention.

Sam L. said...

Well, I'd say BUSH!!!!111!!! did it!

El Pollo Real said...

From Renee's link: "What might have been played out quietly in an obscure Danish civil-law courtroom became a national cause célèbre with the airing early in October of a TV documentary called Pigen Der Ikke Ville Do (The Girl Who Refused to Die) that was viewed by 1.7 million people."

Pigen = the girl. So odd because most Danish girls are so hot.

jr565 said...

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I, as Gosnell's defense attorney can really offer no defense whatsoever for these horrendous acts. As such, the trial is unfair, because a man is supposed to be allowed to have his defense heard. Only, fuck. I got nothin'.
Because there is literally no defense that can be offered and because a man must have a fair trial where a defense is offered, I demand that the cour acquits my client. Or at least a mistrial.

The defense rests.

jr565 said...

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client performed a valuable sevice for these ladies. Those were some babies that needed killing.

The look cute and all despite their slit spines, but don't be fooled. Those babies were some real bastards.One of them was in fact the Antichrist. It had the markings of Lucifer on his skin ladies and gentlemen. 666 the mark of the Beast.
It was the babies or him ladies and gentlemen of the Jury. Self defense.

The defense rests.

CWJ said...

Inga,

Everything you said and yet ...

CWJ said...

Saint Croix,

Thank you for your numerous comments both here and elsewhere. I appreciate the opportunity to consider the points you have made.

Inga said...

",

Everything you said and yet ..."

4/24/13, 6:29 PM

"And yet" what? What are you trying to say? If you are referring to Renee's link, organ donation cannot happen until brain death testing has occured and it has been determined a person's brain dead. Brain death testing had NOT occured in the case of this Danish girl and organ donation was not about to happen without that declaration.

If your cryptic comment doesn't have anything to do with this I don't know what you are getting at, spell it out.

CWJ said...

OK, final comment I swear.

Usually in a horrific crime the defence asks and often gets a change of venue. Here unless I missed something, it seems the defense appears to believe that their best chance is on home turf. Why is that?

Would it have anything to do with Philadelphia, home of the 100% Obama voting precincts?

Don't fool yourselves, he could get off.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
If you are referring to Renee's link, organ donation cannot happen until brain death testing has occured and it has been determined a person's brain dead. Brain death testing had NOT occured in the case of this Danish girl and organ donation was not about to happen without that declaration.


The doctors told the parents that she was brain dead and removed her from her ventilator. How then is she someone not declared brain dead?

Meade said...

edutcher said...
"Your honor, if the Obamas had..."

If Barack Obama had a grandson, he'd look like Baby B.

Inga said...

Daily Mail article about Carina Melchoir

Without having seen the documentary, it appears as if the doctors did not tell her parents she was brain dead, but that her brain was failing. They then started organ donation preparations in the event that her brain stem tests came back positive for brain death. It appears that the testing never happened.

heyboom said...

@mccullough

Good close, but if I were the prosecution I would rebut the argument about saving the mother:

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, there is absolutely no medical necessity to kill a baby during the birthing process. If the mothers' health is in danger, the baby simply needs to be removed from her womb. It doesn't make an iota of difference if the baby comes out alive or dead."

El Pollo Real said...

In lieu of a defense, Dr. Kermit himself takes the stand:

I've seen the horrors...the horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror...Horror has a face...and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I began this business...seems a thousand centuries ago. I treated only women strictly within the confines of the law. One day, a young woman came to me who was well beyond the eighth month. I talked to her, counseled her about her options…but I could not abort her child. She left the clinic upset. Two days later, her mother came running to us and she was crying. I followed her, back to that house. A filthy midwife had attempted an abortion...without anesthesia …a Caesarian in…in the kitchen. In her haste the midwife had hacked off the baby’s feet. There they were on the floor. Two little feet. And the mother had died. And I remember... I... I...I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it...I never want to forget. And then I realized...like I was stabbed...like I was stabbed with a diamond...a diamond dagger right through my forehead. And I thought, my God...the horror of that! The horror! The will to do that on her part! And then I realized that her evil was stronger than mine, because they came to such monsters, these were family-trusted...trained midwives. This was a woman who had had a family, who had had children, who was otherwise filled with love, who organized communities...but she had the strength...the strength...to do that. It happens anyway I thought. But I could fight that horror. If I could bring my knowledge to bear on those women...to improve their situation, our horrific troubles here in Philadelphia would be over very quickly. But you have to have doctors and nurses who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...without judgment...without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us. Don’t judge me! You may kill me but you will not kill abortion!

Revenant said...

It seems to me you would call a medical expert if you want to argue the babies were already dead when they were stabbed.

The defense attorney already got the prosecution's medical expert to admit that he couldn't say for certain that the infants were alive prior to having their spines severed.

gutless said...

It will all swing on jury demographics.

CWJ said...

Inga,

And yet ... the harvesters are waiting in the wings.

Your Daily Mail link does not help your case. It does nothing to allay the fears that a patient may be valued more for parts than a recovery.

And spare me any professional standards pearl clutching. Everything in that daily mail piece pointed toward momentum going in one direction only - toward harvesting.

When seconds count to make that tissue match and get that organ recipient their pound of flash, and get the organ "donor's" loved ones on board, then at best you get the oops moment described in the article.

Inga said...

CJW, if you are against organ donation, say so. The "harvesters" help save lives of those who depend on organ donations to live, BTW. Talk to peole who have had organ transplants, like Bagoh20. Brain stem death MUST be proven before organs are taken.

Just what do you THINK my "case " IS?

Mark O said...

What difference, at this point, does it make?

I rest.

Lem said...

And then I realized...like I was stabbed...like I was stabbed with a diamond...a diamond dagger right through my forehead.

I don't remember Marlon Brando saying that, but then again, I haven't seen Apocalypse Now in a long time.

That was pretty good Pollo.

CWJ said...

I'm not against organ donation.

But why are you blind to the incentives toward treating people as parts.

You yourself said the crucial test was not made.

Once momentum builds its hard to walk it back. A young potential organ donor? That means a heart, a liver, a pair of eyes, lungs, arteries, etc that several someones waiting for them, for who knows how long, will be disappointed if she opens her eyes.

That means for you and your doctor caring for the donor, there are maybe a half dozen of you and other doctors waiting for her to croak.

That's a lot of subtle but real pressure in the wrong direction.

If you can't see the conflict of economic interest then you are blindly believing in the better angels of professions.

Your case that the parents were not explicitly told that she was brain dead is a footnote compared to the momentum of forces arrayed against her, that proceeded in spite of the crucial test not being made.

Safeguards? Yeah, OOPS.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

CWJ,

By LAW in America, brain stem death must be determined before organ donation occurs. NO harvesting of organs would occur until such a determination was made. Honestly I thought you could grasp that. If they discussed organ donation it was not an automatic step toward harvesting, no harvesting is done without brain death.

And again you make presumptions as to how I view a patient and a human being. You appear to be looking for a whipping boy or something here, look elsewhere.


CWJ said...

This was not America. What was I supposed to understand?

ken in sc said...

I was on a jury in which one of the members said she would never vote to send someone to prison because it would ruin their lives. It was a child sex abuse case in which it was obvious the guy was guilty. We had a hung jury. He was offered a plea deal. I don't know what he got.

PianoLessons said...

If Gosnell was my client, I would argue that my acts were simply the law of the land. My client acted legally (maybe to some not morally - but legally).

RigelDog said...

I'm thinking Jack will argue that the babies were already dead, so no degree of homicide applies. He'll argue for complete acquittal on the woman who died, but also argue in the alternative for involuntary manslaughter and/or third degree murder.
I don't think he'll get much into the abortion qua abortion issue.

RigelDog said...

I'm thinking Jack will argue that the babies were already dead, so no degree of homicide applies. He'll argue for complete acquittal on the woman who died, but also argue in the alternative for involuntary manslaughter and/or third degree murder.
I don't think he'll get much into the abortion qua abortion issue.

PianoLessons said...

ken in sc said...he was on a hung jury because one member refused to send child sex offender defendant to jail because it would ruin his life...

Happens all the time - all across USA. Juries listen to judges order the same way Charlie Brown characters listened to their teachers drone on "WAH WAH WHAAA BLAH".

I personally know several people who served on juries that threw judges's orders out the door.

Gotta love it - or not?

Saint Croix said...

You are welcome, CWJ. But thank Althouse, too, she rocks.

Henry said...

The defense attorney will shout: "You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial's out of order!"

hombre said...

It is always a mistake for prosecutors to charges dozens of counts or more, although warranted. It allows defense attorneys to confuse jurors. Apparently even the judge is confused in this case.

Do we think the defense attorney is backing off because he thinks there is already error in the case?

hombre said...

@CWJ: Don't pay too much attention to Igna. She's creepy ... and not too smart.

Inga said...

Homber, is a weird anti organ donation jerk. Hopefully some relative of yours may never be in need an organ transplant. And If ever they do need one, I hope you remember the anti science ignorant crap you spewed on Althouse over the years.

Ralph L said...

I personally know several people who served on juries that threw judges's orders out the door
I was on a jury in which another juror brought up a previous trial in which the undercover cop witness had been the victim--against the judge's explicit instructions. I let her have it with both barrels--sounded just like my father. She (and everyone else) voted to convict not long after.

McTriumph said...

Your Honor, i object to this trial. it's a travesty, a travesty of a mockery......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYp9WtbMo2k

Inga said...

Ah yes, I remember another interesting tidbit about our friend Homber, he doesn't believe in blood transfusions either. I suggest he stays away from utensils with sharp blades.


Alex said...

Inga - so if the GOP conservatives were all willing to finance black babies growing up would that make their opposition to abortion ok?

El Pollo Real said...

hombre said...
@CWJ: Don't pay too much attention to Igna. She's creepy ... and not too smart.

I think she's more like Dhjokhar...malevolent influences.

Ralph L said...

he doesn't believe in blood transfusions either
Is he the same guy who was vehemently against male circumcision?

Now that I think about it, the judge's instruction had been part of our swearing in as jurors, so that juror perjured herself just a few minutes after the swearing in.

Inga said...

Ralph, no that was Gabriel Hanna.

Carl said...

I think if you're a lawyer and you think your Job #1 here is to get him off, you're an antisocial scumbag and should be deported to Antarctica with a change of clothing and pocket knife forthwith.

But if you consider your job to be seeing justice done, then the question is easy to answer. You simply bring up each element of the case the prosecution needs to prove, and point out where their evidence is weakest. If you genuinely think any weakness is sufficient to disqualify that bit of evidence, then say so -- that is honest, and just. But otherwise, you leave the statement of the law and its standards to the judge, and you leave the judgment to the jury, and you say just that. Your job is to state things clearly and illuminate each and every weakness in the prosecution's case, to keep them honest and satisfy the most skeptical of observers that justice was done.

But it's not your business to try any old bullshit tactic to get the nonhuman monster off. If the jury wants to acquit him, that's their affair.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But that defense argument doesn't work in this case, since these babies have, obviously, been the victim of a stabbing."

-- The argument then is: "My client is a creepy monster who mutilates dead things, not a murderer."

It's kind of a win, I guesS?

Tank said...

I admit it's hard to wrap my head around the whole thing. This late term abortion thing. If you make a "mistake" during the procedure, you accidentally end up with a live (presumably healthy) human being. How do you reconcile that?

This is why, even though I think it's the women's choice to make, that choice should almost always be against abortion.

Tank said...

Carl said...

I think if you're a lawyer and you think your Job #1 here is to get him off, you're an antisocial scumbag and should be deported to Antarctica with a change of clothing and pocket knife forthwith.

But if you consider your job to be seeing justice done, then the question is easy to answer. You simply bring up each element of the case the prosecution needs to prove, and point out where their evidence is weakest. If you genuinely think any weakness is sufficient to disqualify that bit of evidence, then say so -- that is honest, and just. But otherwise, you leave the statement of the law and its standards to the judge, and you leave the judgment to the jury, and you say just that. Your job is to state things clearly and illuminate each and every weakness in the prosecution's case, to keep them honest and satisfy the most skeptical of observers that justice was done.

But it's not your business to try any old bullshit tactic to get the nonhuman monster off. If the jury wants to acquit him, that's their affair.

This is nice law school theory (not that it's wrong). In real life Prosecutors are desperate to convict and defense attorneys seek not guilty verdicts. Many are quite willing to cheat to do it. Everyone in the system has their own motivations and personal interests.

Matthew Sablan said...

Strategically, I'd try and side with the jury as the lawyer. "Yeah, my client is a scumbag who did terrible, terrible things." Make it clear you do not like him, that you find this distasteful, but stress that: he's creepy but not a murderer.

southcentralpa said...

I imagine it would have the tone of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE

Nichevo said...

Whores, it must be observed that a number of people are with you 90 percent of the way, but then you go off the rails. You make remarks that have some validity, but then you apply them with too broad a brush. Some of your remarks could have been made in past centuries about other "races" such as the Irish, and as then, we now see a good deal of the pathology you described, but it has to be said that many blacks do not have these problems. I myself have known black people who were perfectly decent and civilized human beings.

So I have to put that which I know against that of which you speak. I am NOT going to mind being called a pussy or whatever by you nearly as much as I am going to mind not believing what I have seen with my own eyes.

So you need to be a little more nuanced. But, that's just my opinion.

Nichevo said...

and that is not the setup in the adversarial system which we enjoy. the job of either side is not justice, but victory; and the conflict is supposed to yield justice. Just as the interaction of self interest in our capitalistic system is supposed to yield a good economic result.

Aridog said...

If I were on the jury, what @ Revenant said would be my sticking points.

It seems to me you would call a medical expert if you want to argue the babies were already dead when they were stabbed.

In my mind I'd wonder why all were stabbed or cut routinely if they were known to be dead? Are still born babies born in ordinary OBGYN facilities routinely stabbed or cut once out of the womb?

The defense attorney already got the prosecution's medical expert to admit that he couldn't say for certain that the infants were alive prior to having their spines severed.

Could he say with certainty that they are NOT alive?

I'd have to go with my own personal experiences with the dead I guess...and THAT tells me that there are many observable external factors in mammalian tissue that indicate death.

Why was a coup de grace performed routinely if unnecessary?

I'd vote to convict.

Baron Zemo said...

It is pretty simple.

This is what abortion is.

If you agree with abortion you must let him go.

You wanted choice. This is what you chose.

Aridog said...

Baron Zemo said...

It is pretty simple...This is what abortion is.

Yes it is. Plain and simple and this trial won't change it, because too many of us refuse to acknowledge it.

How long before we debate how many weeks old out-of-the-womb does an infant have to be for us to be constrained from killing it?

I do recall in my youth some parents saying "I brung you in to this world and I can take you out of it!"

Theodore said...

Mesdames et messieurs,

this here client of mine, is a threat to society, but he is obviously raving mad, he has no remorse, does not understand that he has murdered innocent babies. I ask you, isn't it clear that he has never been fit to stand trial? Those who allowed this madman to gather over a million by killing children and women, should be the accused here, not my dangerously insane client!