edward killen

[Meeka]

My prediction for the best appeal issue, if he lives long enough for an appeal, is the Manslaughter instruction. The way I seeit, if he planned the killing - that is murder. Manslaughter is a killing done in the heat of passion; without 'deliberate design'. Like when you get in a fight and kill someone or come home to find your mistress in bed with someone else. I am just wondering if there was an evidentiary basis for a manslaughter instruction, cause I'm not aware of one. But maybe Killen's lawyers didn't object.

No S/L for manslaughter : "Aperson shall not be prosecuted for any offense, with the exception of murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, arson, burglary, forgery, counterfeiting, robbery, larceny, rape, embezzlement, obtaining money or property under false pretenses or by fraud, felonious abuse or battery of a child as described in Section 97-5-39, touching or handling a child for lustful purposes as described in Section 97-5-23, sexual battery of a child as described in Section 97-3-95(1)(c), (d) or (2) or exploitation of children as described in Section 97-5-33, unless the prosecution for such offense be commenced within two (2) years next after the commission thereof, but nothing contained in this section shall bar any prosecution against any person who shall abscond or flee from justice, or shall absent himself from this state or out of the jurisdiction of the court, or so conduct himself that he cannot be found by the officers of the law, or that process cannot be served upon him."

[sportsman450]

My prediction for the best appeal issue, if he lives long enough for an appeal, is the Manslaughter instruction. The way I seeit, if he planned the killing - that is murder. Manslaughter is a killing done in the heat of passion; without 'deliberate design'. Like when you get in a fight and kill someone or come home to find your mistress in bed with someone else. I am just wondering if there was an evidentiary basis for a manslaughter instruction, cause I'm not aware of one. But maybe Killen's lawyers didn't object.

I'm pretty sure one of Killen's lawyers said on court tv yesterday that he had objected to the manslaughter instruction.

No S/L for manslaughter : "Aperson shall not be prosecuted for any offense, with the exception of murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, arson, burglary, forgery, counterfeiting, robbery, larceny, rape, embezzlement, obtaining money or property under false pretenses or by fraud, felonious abuse or battery of a child as described in Section 97-5-39, touching or handling a child for lustful purposes as described in Section 97-5-23, sexual battery of a child as described in Section 97-3-95(1)(c), (d) or (2) or exploitation of children as described in Section 97-5-33, unless the prosecution for such offense be commenced within two (2) years next after the commission thereof, but nothing contained in this section shall bar any prosecution against any person who shall abscond or flee from justice, or shall absent himself from this state or out of the jurisdiction of the court, or so conduct himself that he cannot be found by the officers of the law, or that process cannot be served upon him."

Damn! That pretty much covers everything. What IS there a statute of limitation for???

[Po Monkey Lounger]

"Well, IMO, the jury did the right thing. Found Killen guilty of planning the attacks on the 3 civil rights workers. I think it was smart for the prosecutors to not go for an all or nothing verdict, amend the charges to add the manslaughter count and ask for the manslaughter instruction. Based upon the testimony re the instructions given by Killen to the other klansmen, it was conceivable that the jury could find that Killen ordered an attack on these workers, but not necessarily murder. From a practical standpoint, being found guilty of 3 separate counts of manslaughter carrying a penalty of up to 20 years for each count, will put him behind bars for the rest of his pitiful existence on earth. "

Well, it looks like my assessment was correct. An article in the Tupelo Daily Journal today, by one of the jururs, explains their deliberations and reasoning behind the sentence of manslaughter. To find Killen guilty of murder or conspiracy to murder, the prosecution had to prove that Killen pulled the trigger, or was at the scene assisting in the murders, or specifically planned/ordered the perpetrators to commit murder. The evidence did not place Killen at the scene. The only evidence of his instructions to the others was that the three civil rights workers "needed their asses tore up". This was after he had organized the group that carried out the violence. Manslaughter is not just a crime of passion. It includes killing someone by accident, especially where you intended to harm someone, but not necessarily intended to kill them. The initial deadlock of 6-6 was between those who wanted to convict him of murder and those who wanted to specifically follow the jury's instructions from the court, which lead to the manslaugher conviction. IMO, the jury made the right decision, based upon the evidence presented in Court. They did as they were instructed to do. The system worked, although belatedly. I don't see any valid basis for appeal. IMO, this decision will not be reversed on appeal.

[sportsman450]

"Well, it looks like my assessment was correct. An article in the Tupelo Daily Journal today, by one of the jururs, explains their deliberations and reasoning behind the sentence of manslaughter. To find Killen guilty of murder or conspiracy to murder, the prosecution had to prove that Killen pulled the trigger, or was at the scene assisting in the murders, or specifically planned/ordered the perpetrators to commit murder. The evidence did not place Killen at the scene. The only evidence of his instructions to the others was that the three civil rights workers "needed their asses tore up". This was after he had organized the group that carried out the violence. Manslaughter is not just a crime of passion. It includes killing someone by accident, especially where you intended to harm someone, but not necessarily intended to kill them. The initial deadlock of 6-6 was between those who wanted to convict him of murder and those who wanted to specifically follow the jury's instructions from the court, which lead to the manslaugher conviction. IMO, the jury made the right decision, based upon the evidence presented in Court. They did as they were instructed to do. The system worked, although belatedly. I don't see any valid basis for appeal. IMO, this decision will not be reversed on appeal.

What a load a crap. Politics won, and justice got lost in the process!!!