Scipio further explains his view that the Killen manslaughter verdict indicates a weakness in the state’s case—and gives evidence from the Evers case that suggests the decision to seek the manslaughter instruction might reinforce the “political” nature of Killen’s prosecution:
Because of the peculiarity of Mississippi’s murder law, a defendant who is on the evidence guilty of murder can be convicted only of manslaughter without error attaching. But this is a decision the jury should be allowed to make, without the State telegraphing AS IT DID WITH ITS MOTION. When, immediately before trial, the State asks for a special instruction on manslaughter when murder is the real crime, it indicates a severe weakness in the case, and also that the indictment is deeply flawed.
1 comment:
This is a toughie. Based on my experience in criminal trial law, it’s quite possible that the state asking for the manslaughter instruction was an implicit concession that their case for murder wasn’t very strong. On the other hand, it might also have been a practical decision that, given the age of the defendant and the permissible sentence for manslaughter (as you’ve noted in your post below, he’ll spend the rest of his life in prison) a manslaughter conviction was “acceptable” to the state, and giving the instruction allowed the jury to compromise on a conviction for manslaughter, as opposed to forcing them to convict/acquit of murder alone (and risking the acquittal if the jury had some qualms about i)t.