Judge "Leaves Door Open" For Biblical Defense as Tiller Murder Motive By Wendy Norris, RH Reality Check December 23, 2009

Wendy Norris's picture

Wendy Norris is an editor and investigative reporter in Denver, Colorado. She covers the Rocky Mountain West and Plains States for RH Reality Check.

A Kansas judge curbed but did not disallow the use of a radical "Biblical defensive force" strategy at Scott Roeder's murder trial next month.

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled Tuesday that Kansas law does not recognize the "necessity defense" — a legal claim that a defendant is justified in breaking the law to thwart a greater imminent threat. Roeder admitted to news reporters last month that he killed Wichita physician George Tiller May 31in the foyer of a church to prevent him from performing abortions.

The judge said allowing the personal beliefs of defendants to justify unlawful actions would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."

For months, the Army of God, a militant anti-abortion group linked to murders, clinic arsons and domestic terrorism, has egged Roeder on to claim Tiller's death was Biblically justified.

However, that ultimate aim has not been entirely lost.

Wilbert said he would "leave the door open" for Roeder's defense team to argue to jurors that his religious beliefs about abortion compelled him to act.

Wichita Eagle reporter Ron Sylvester, who attended the hearing and tweeted the proceedings, notes that could signal the defense could seek a conviction on lesser charges mitigated by Roeder's extreme views. A voluntarily manslaughter verdict could result in a prison term of less than 10 years rather than life imprisonment for first-degree murder.

While the "necessity defense" is a legitimate secular legal strategy, Roeder's motives are something altogether different.

The "defensive force" argument was originally penned by Army of God member Paul Hill and is rooted in a rambling manifesto based on a radical Christian Dominionist interpretation of the Bible.

The Army of God claims the Bible justifies "defensive force" to attack, maim or murder abortion providers. Christian theologians universally reject the strained paleo-conservative interpretation of meting out Earth-bound justice against imagined foes in the name of God. The tactic has never been allowed in court as a defense for clinic violence. Including for its own author.

Hill was convicted and put to death by the State of Florida for the 1994 murders of physician Dr. John Britton and clinic escort Jim Barrett and the wounding of Barrett's wife, June, outside a Pensacola clinic.

In reaction to Roeder's arrest, the Iowa Independent recently reported that Des Moines resident Dave Leach claims to have updated Hill's "Defensive Action Statement." The revised canon was signed by 21 anti-abortion militants, including three who are serving prison sentences. One of those signatories is Shelley Shannon, who was convicted of attempted murder for a 1993 shooting of Tiller and is in federal detention for subsequent arson and acid attacks at clinics in the Pacific Northwest.

Leach is credited with writing the Army of God bomb-making manual used in clinic ambushes by Shannon and others.

The pair and other Army of God members have been regularly corresponding with Roeder since his June arrest encouraging him to stake out the Biblical defense motive.

“Now, hopefully, the public can begin to hear about how essential this defense is to the Rule of Law in America,” he said. “Our everyday lives would become insane if the letter of every law were enforced even in situations where that would cause tragedy and death.”

Despite their initial hopes, the proposed defense was supposedly off the table, according to a Nov. 11 story in the Wichita Eagle.

"There's no such thing as the necessity defense," said Steve Osburn, head of the Sedgwick County Public Defender's Office and Roeder's lead counsel. "This is a fictional defense made up by these people." It's not a legal defense, either, Osburn said. "There is nothing in the law of Kansas, or anywhere else, that allows this kind of defense," Osburn said.

That outburst was contradicted two weeks later when Osburn later claimed he was simply disavowing the strategy in the media to confuse the prosecution about his defense planning.

Though Osburn's courtroom kabuki theater got a bit more complex after the pretrial hearing. The defense team withdrew a motion requesting Tiller's calendar following the judge's denial of the necessity defense negating the need to prove the physician's death prevented scheduled abortions.

In two other rulings Tuesday, the judge barred lawyers from dismissing potential jurors based on their views about religious or abortion.

Wilbert also refused to move the trial after Roeder's court-appointed public defenders requested a change of venue arguing that their client cannot get a fair trial in a city scarred by decades of virulent anti-abortion protests. The defense motion claimed the ability to seat an impartial jury was constrained by press accounts of people who claimed to be close to Roeder were quoted in news stories "with inflammatory statements damning the defendant."

The aggrieved friends and family excuse may be the least of the lawyers' problems considering their client has been blabbing for weeks to any journalist with a stenographer's notebook that he murdered Tiller.

Scott Roeder's Defense: I Killed Abortion Doctor George Tiller to Protect "Preborn Children"

Scott Roeder's Defense: I Killed Abortion Doctor George Tiller to Protect "Preborn Children"

by Carlin DeGuerin Miller

WICHITA, Kan. (CBS/AP) He had to kill so others could live. That’s the argument defense attorneys are set to make Dec. 22 for Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion activist accused of shooting abortion doctor George Tiller.

Photo: Scott Roeder attends a preliminary hearing in Wichita, Kan. July 28, 2009.

This is an about face in strategy from their previous statement back in November when Roeder seemingly confessed to the Associated Press that he murdered the prominent and controversial abortion doctor "because of the necessity defense," saying that he was defending "preborn children."

At the time, public defender Steve Osburn said there was no such thing as the necessity defense and that it "does not seem to be the approach that is viable, nor is it the approach we intend to use."

Photo: Dr. George Tiller March 23, 2009.

The 51-year-old Roeder, from Kansas City, Mo., is charged with one count of premeditated, first-degree murder in Dr. Tiller's death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers during a May 31 melee in which Tiller was shot in the foyer of his Wichita church.

Previous attempts by other anti-abortion activists to use this defense have failed. The most prominent example was Rachelle Renae Shannon who tried to kill Tiller in 1993. He was wounded but survived and continued to run his abortion clinic. Shannon was sentenced to 10 years for the crime, but remains in jail for other anti-abortion attacks.

Photo: The body of Dr. George Tiller is removed from Reformation Lutheran Church on Sunday, May 31, 2009.

Judge Warren Wilbert is set to hear a variety of other motions from both sides according to CBS affiliate KWCH, which is running a live blog of the hearing. The station says Wilbert has already denied a defense motion for change of venue saying that he feels it would be premature to rule out the possibility of finding impartial jurors before attorneys even begin the process.

Judge Warren did say he would keep an open mind and that the court would be closely monitoring all juror questionnaires to spot overriding prejudices.

Prosecutors have said that they would prefer it if abortion were not mentioned at all during the trial, set to begin in January 2010. Instead they want to focus on the details of the May afternoon when Roeder allegedly terrorized Dr. Tiller’s Wichita church.

Judge Wilbert's ruling on whether to allow the necessity defense could potentially set the eventual course for a verdict when combined with Roeder's media confession and a significant amount of evidence against him.


MORE ON CRIMESIDER
November 10, 2009 - Roeder Admits Killing Kansas Abortion Doctor George Tiller; Says He Has No Regrets
October 26, 2009 - What Will EBay Do? Anti-Abortion Auction Slated for Alleged Killer of Abortion Doctor George Tiller
June 11, 2009 - Abortion Foes Want To Buy Slain Abortion Doc's Clinic
June 8, 2009 - Alleged Abortion Doc Killer Says More Murders Planned
June 4, 2009 - PETA Places Billboards In Wake Of Tiller Murder
June 2, 2009 - Man Charged With Killing Abortion Doc Has Long Anti-Gov History
June 2, 2009 - Abortion Debate Rages: Tiller Called "Mass Murderer"
June 2, 2009 - Abortion Foes Fear Backlash To Tiller's Slaying
June 1, 2009 - Abortion Doctor Murdered In Church, Suspect Jailed

Scott's Motion Hearing Live Feed Notes by Cliff Judy

Thanks for joining us for today's coverage of Scott Roeder's motion hearing.

Motions are set for 9:00 a.m. They include a change of venue motion, and Roeder has said he wants the right to use the "necessity defense" for trial strategy. He's told the media he killed Wichita late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller because he wanted to protect unborn children. This should be a one-day hearing.

Prosecutors have already told me they don't want abortion mentioned at all in Roeder's trial. They want to stick to the facts of the day Tiller died.

What is security like. I heard ATF swept the courtroom.

Security is pretty tight. Besides the standard security and metal detectors downstairs, there is another round of security checks just before you get into the courtroom.

Yes, officials have swept the courtroom, but I don't know if that consisted of the Sedgwick County Sheriff or if they have extra assistance today. I do know they just took sniffer dogs through the courtroom for a quick check. Originally, there was supposed to be a parole violation hearing in an unrelated case before Roeder's motion hearing got started.

Looks like that's been continued to another date.

Still waiting for the motion hearing to begin.

Prosecutors are in the courtroom, but Roeder and his defense team aren't yet.

Probably still a few minutes before we'll get going.


So everyone knows, courtroom security requires us to disconnect our feed during breaks.

If you click on our streaming video feed and see nothing, there's a good chance court's just not in session at that particular moment.

Roeder's defense attorneys are now in the courtroom, but he hasn't been escorted in yet.


Prosecution team from the Sedgwick County District Attorney's Office: DA Nola Foulston, Kim Parker, and Ann Swegle.

Defense team from the Sedgwick County Public Defender's Office: Chief Public Defender Steve Osburn and Mark Rudy.


Has Roeder been in the Sedgwick Co. jail all this time?

Yes, Roeder has been held on $20 million bond.

Roeder is being led into the courtroom right now. He's wearing a black suit and tie. He and Osburn exchange a very brief conversation before the judge enters the courtroom.

Sounds like the first motion will be from the defense (there are five motions total for today).

The defense wants to make sure Roeder's criminal history isn't brought up at trial.

Mark Rudy begins talking about all of the publicity surrounding the case and why Roeder should be granted a change of venue.

Rudy points out the significant amount of media coverage this case has received and introduces front pages of the Wichita Eagle.

Rudy says Dr. George Tiller was a controversial and well-known figure in Wichita before he was killed, and his death is set against the background of abortion.

Rudy says in the last month, anyone could see the Eagle headlines "screaming about his confession" to killing Dr. Tiller.

Rudy: "It is unfathomable to think that someone could say, 'Despite everything I've heard about his background and his confession, I can walk into this courtroom and be impartial.'"

Rudy: "It's right to move this case to an area where people haven't been inundated with the barrage of media coverage."

I did a preview of this hearing yesterday. Judges who've worked for Sedgwick County for decades say they can't remember a single case where the judge allowed the trial to leave Wichita.

We have live video up on our website. Last I checked, it was working.

You can click on the link at the top of this page to see the video.

District Attorney Nola Foulston is making her argument.

She says in a community of around 500,000, court officials will be able to find 12 impartial jurors.

Foulston says past court precedents show that media coverage alone shouldn't be the sole reason to move a trial.

She says the reason to consider is whether attorneys can empanel a jury, and we won't be able to say that's impossible until January when trial begins.

Foulston also points out a significant amount of the continuing coverage on Roeder has been due to him meeting with and calling reporters.

Comment From GuestGuest: ] If the trial left Wichita, where would it be held?

Good question. If the motion was granted, defense attorneys would like look for a comparable-sized county to Sedgwick. They also probably wouldn't want a county in the same viewing area as Wichita TV stations.

Hard to say. Maybe Johnson County in KCK? It's a moot point until the judge's decision.

Rudy again mentions Foulston's public comments that Roeder's actions amounted to an act of terrorism.

Rudy calls terrorism the "boogey-man word" that would further influence potential jurors.

Looks like Judge Warren Wilbert is going to deny the change of venue. Hasn't ruled yet, but his words are leading to it.

Judge Wilbert says 300 summons have been sent out with the hopes of receiving 150 responses from potential jurors.

He says he feels like a sufficient number of individuals have been summoned and an attempt should be made to try the case in Sedgwick County.

He also says the court will closely monitor jury questionnaires to see if there are over-riding prejudices.

Judge Wilbert denies the change of venue motion, but says he will keep an open mind. He says it would be premature to move the trial before attorneys even tried to set a jury.

Defense attorneys are now arguing a jury selection motion.

Defense attorneys say that jurors' opinions on the issue of abortion should be revealed, and beliefs shouldn't have any bearing on whether they're allowed to stay in the jury pool.

Defense attorneys are citing a previous court case where jurors were protected from being removed from the jury pool based on race. Mark Rudy is arguing that precedent should be extended out to a person's opinions on abortion.

Prosecutor Ann Swegle is arguing that protecting a juror based on race is one thing, but it's a jump to protect them based on beliefs.

Swegle points out potential jurors are dismissed all the time for capital murder trials based on their beliefs regarding the death penalty.

Sounds like Judge Wilbert will deny this motion as well.

He says it'd be hard to even establish the parameters of whether a juror should be protected based on their abortion beliefs.

"I've heard people who are openly pro-life regarding abortion who've condemned Dr. Tiller's murder," says Judge Wilbert.

He also says until we're actually engaged in the process, we won't be able to know if there's an issue here.

Judge Wilbert officially says he denies the jury selection motion.

And here comes perhaps the biggest motion of the day...the prosecution motion asking the judge to limit any "necessity defense" argument or defense trial strategy.

Prosecutor Kim Parker says the necessity defense isn't a recognized defense in Kansas.

Roeder has told the media he killed Dr. Tiller because he was trying to protect unborn children.

Parker cites a 1993 Kansas Supreme Court case involving someone who trespassed on Tiller's property. The defendant tried to use the necessity defense, and the Supreme Court ruled that allowing that trial strategy would be "tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."

Parker says research shows the necessity defense in any kind of criminal case has been rejected more than 100,000 times nationwide.

Parker says there is "no logical reason to parade the defendant's beliefs on abortion in front of a jury to distract them from the facts of the case."

This is a point Parker made to me during Roeder's preliminary hearing. Prosecutors want jurors to only be thinking about the facts of the shooting that killed Dr. Tiller. Abortion is a controversial, murky issue they don't want jurors thinking about.

Prosecutors want jurors to think about a defendant who pulled a trigger and killed another human being, nothing else.

Parker also says the prosecution will be opposed to any defense that proposes a possible conviction for voluntary manslaughter.

Roeder is charged with first degree murder, which would carry a life sentence with the possibility of parole in 25 years. Voluntary manslaughter would carry far less time in prison.

Counsel has approached the bench...which means we had to cut our audio feed.

That's why you can't hear anything right now.

Court is into the morning recess. Court will be back in session at 11:00.

That's when we'll likely hear the defense's argument their trial strategy shouldn't be limited.

Sounds like there's a decent chance this hearing will be done before noon.

Court is back in session. We've already heard two of five motions, and we're well into the third.

If I remember correctly, the two remaining motions aren't the kind that'll draw lengthy arguments.

We'll see.

Defense attorneys are basically saying they've never come out and said they want to use the necessity defense (Roeder has, but attorneys haven't).

Mark Rudy says it's unreasonable for prosecutors to ask the judge to order the defense to limit its strategy so significantly.

Rudy says to order the defense to hold back evidence or strategy before they've even presented it "is effectively handcuffing and gagging us at the same time."

Judge Wilbert is making his ruling. He starts by saying the basic issue is...whatever defense is presented must be recognized by the law.

Judge Wilbert says Scott Roeder's confession to the media that he killed Dr. Tiller to protect unborn children was a "defense of others" argument in Roeder's mind.

Judge Wilbert says he's researched "defense of others," and he's prepared to make a ruling on a possible necessity defense.

However, the judge is giving defense attorneys the opportunity to do more research if they want before he rules.

Judge Wilbert says the primary precedent regarding the necessity defense in Kansas is the City of Wichita vs. Tilson in 1993. This is the case where the Kansas Supreme Court denied the necessity defense saying it was "tantamount to sanctioning anarchy" (the same case prosecutors cited).

Doesn't sound good so far for Roeder's hope to use necessity defense.

Judge Wilbert reads from the 1993 ruling. It says that it's clear that whatever evil or harm the defendant was trying to prevent must be a legal harm, not a moral or ethical belief.

Judge Wilbert has already talked about how the law makes it clear abortion is legal.

Again, sounds very likely Judge Wilbert's about to announce he won't allow the necessity defense as a trial strategy.

Judge Wilbert continues to read from previous rulings.

"Some people will be compelled to break the law based on their beliefs, but they must be prepared to face the consequences."

Judge Wilbert says, "Now, that was a ruling set against the backdrop of a question over property rights vs. abortion."

The Tilson case involved trespassing on Dr. Tiller's property in 1993.

"We've now elevated that to taking a life to save a life in abortion?" says Wilbert.

Judge Wilbert now goes into the self-defense theory. He says it's clear this isn't a case of self defense, but the defendant's perceived defense of another.

There was no imminent threat as Dr. Tiller served as an usher at his church.

Okay, I'm back.

Just before the noon hour, Judge Wilbert announced he wasn't making an official ruling on the prosecution motion to ban the necessity defense at trial.

However, he did say, "I think I've made it pretty clear I don't consider it a viable option for this case."

What does that do here?

This is a little less than what prosecutors were likely hoping for. They hoped for a straight ban of the necessity strategy at Roeder's trial.

The judge said he'd try to keep an open mind, but coming out and saying he doesn't consider it a viable option doesn't leave much of a crack in the door.

Court is done for the day. Judge Wilbert and attorneys were able to wrap up all of the motions before the lunch break.

Thanks for joining me for this morning's coverage of the Roeder motion hearings. We'll have stories tonight on Eyewitness News at 5:00, 6:00, and 10:00.

Just ran into prosecutor Kim Parker. Says judge calling necessity defense not viable is "exactly what we wanted."

Ron Sylvester - Tweets of Scott Roeder hearing

Eagle courts reporter Ron Sylvester has been sending ultra-brief updates from this Sedgwick County hearing this morning via Twitter. To get the latest updates, refresh or reload this story in your browser.

• And the hearing has ended. Will recap soon. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: I will leave to door open if the defense wants to file further briefs and arguments before trial. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: There was no imminent threat by Tiller, who was shot in the back of his church, so self-defense is not appropriate. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: courts can also rule that self- defense is not appropriate, when a threat is not imminent. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: (paraphrasing) If trespassing isn't a viable use of the necessity defense, it can hardly apply to killing. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: Quoting KS Supreme Court - to allow this would be to sanction vigilantes and would result in anarchy. about 3 hours ago
• In other words, you can't perform an illegal act to prevent a legal act. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: Appeals courts say the necessity defense isn't viable for trespassing at abortion clinics. And trespassing is a misdemeanor. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: Although people may disagree, abortion is legal. about 3 hours ago
• Wilbert: In Kansas case law, blocking access to a clinic was not adequate for a necessity defense. about 3 hours ago

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/1108858.html#ixzz0aSGGrFVx

Scott Roeder trial to start next month BY RON SYLVESTER The Wichita Eagle

Scott Roeder trial to start next month

BY RON SYLVESTER

The Wichita Eagle

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/1108858.html#ixzz0aSFvcR9H

WICHITA — A Sedgwick County district judge ruled this morning that Scott Roeder's murder trial will begin next month in Wichita and limited the use of the so-called "necessity defense."

But Judge Warren Wilbert said he would "leave the door open" for Roeder's defense to present other evidence and arguments that he killed Wichita abortion provider George Tiller in the belief that he was saving the lives of unborn fetuses.

That leaves open the possibility that Roeder's public defenders could ask jurors to consider crimes less than first-degree premeditated murder. Kansas law, for example, defines voluntary manslaughter as the "unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

A conviction of voluntary manslaughter would carry less than 10 years in prison for Roeder, compared with life imprisonment for murder.

But those issues will not be considered until the judge gives legal instructions to the jury before they hear closing arguments and begin deliberations.

Wilbert said, however, that he would find it difficult to allow testimony indicating Roeder was acting in self-defense, or defense of others, because the law requires a "imminent threat." Tiller was shot and killed May 31 inside the lobby of his church, where he was serving as an usher.

Wilbert denied a motion to move the trial outside Sedgwick County, based on defense claims that news coverage before the trial had made it impossible for Roeder to receive a fair trial. Wilbert said it was too soon to say an impartial jury cannot be picked until lawyers start questioning potential jurors when the trial starts Jan. 11.

Some 300 potential jurors are being summoned to the courthouse for the trial. That will be whittled to a final pool of 42, Wilbert said. From that, lawyers will pick 14: the 12 jurors who will decide the case and two alternates.

Wilbert said he will not, however, allow Roeder to use what has been called a "necessity defense," where the defendant claims that he or she broke the law to prevent a greater harm. Roeder has said he killed Tiller to save the lives of fetuses who were being aborted.

But Wilbert said the necessity defense is not recognized under Kansas law, and appeals courts have ruled it unacceptable in cases of trespassing on abortion clinics. If courts have ruled it not a viable defense in misdemeanor cases, it wouldn't apply to murder, Wilbert ruled.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/1108858.html#ixzz0aSG4JnYS

Judge Denies Change of Venue Request for Roeder Posted: Dec 21, 2009 2:34 PM EST Updated: Dec 22, 2009 11:29 AM EST

Judge Denies Change of Venue Request for Roeder

Posted: Dec 21, 2009 2:34 PM EST Updated: Dec 22, 2009 11:29 AM EST

Update - Tuesday 10:15 am:

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - A Sedgwick County district judge says a motion to prohibit the use of pre-emptory jury strikes in the trial of a man accused of killing a Kansas abortion doctor is premature.

Judge Warren Wilbert on Tuesday denied a defense motion to prohibit the strikes, but said he would deal with such issues on a person-by-person basis during trial.

Fifty-one-year-old Scott Roeder is accused of fatally shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 at Tiller's Wichita Church. Roeder has confessed to shooting Tiller, but he says the slaying was necessary to save unborn children.

Earlier Tuesday, Wilbert denied a defense motion for a change of venue for the trial.

(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

--------------

By Cliff Judy (WICHITA, Kan.)

Scott Roeder's murder trial may be set for next month, but a motion hearing scheduled for Tuesday at the Sedgwick County Courthouse will likely have a major effect on trial strategy. That's because the reason Wichita late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller died will be on debate.

Evidence already presented in court and legal precedents point to Scott Roeder, the man prosecutors and witnesses say shot Tiller in the head while he served as an usher at his church. Roeder points to Tiller's profession.

Judge Warren Wilbert will hear several motions regarding what he will and won't allow at trial. Among them is a defense change of venue motion and Roeder's desire to use a "necessity defense" justifying Tiller's death because Roeder wanted to protect unborn children.

Last month, Roeder admitted to killing Tiller in a phone interview with an Associated Press reporter. He said he didn't regret his actions and wanted to stop Tiller's abortion clinic.

Prosecutors have already told Eyewitness News they don't want abortion mentioned at all during Roeder's murder trial. They've also filed a motion asking that the court ban any use of the defense, citing a 1993 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that allowing the necessity defense could lead to anarchy.

Wilbert's ruling on whether to allow the necessity defense could even set the eventual course for a verdict when combined with Roeder's media confession and a significant amount of evidence against him.

Roeder's attorneys are also asking Wilbert for a change of venue because of the publicity attached to the case. However, judges who've served Sedgwick County for decades can't remember a single case where a judge allowed the trial to leave Wichita.

Eyewitness News and reporter Cliff Judy will be following all aspects of the trial. Expect updates here on kwch.com, on Eyewitness Newscasts, and on Twitter (KWCH12 and 12Judy).

Judge rejects defense motions in abortion case By ROXANA HEGEMAN Associated Press Writer The Associated Press Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:58 AM EST

Judge rejects defense motions in abortion case

By ROXANA HEGEMAN Associated Press Writer The Associated Press

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:58 AM EST

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A judge on Tuesday dealt setbacks to the defense of a man accused of killing an abortion provider, rejecting a change of venue request and a motion that would have kept prosecutors from making peremptory jury strikes based on potential jurors' beliefs about abortion.

While the judge denied a defense motion to prohibit the strikes, he said he would deal with such issues on a person-by-person basis during Scott Roeder's trial. Minutes earlier, he denied a defense motion to move the case out of Wichita, where pre-trial publicity has been intense.

Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., is charged with one count of premeditated, first-degree murder in Dr. George Tiller's death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers during the May 31 melee in the foyer of the doctor's Wichita church.

District Judge Warren Wilbert was to rule later Tuesday on a motion to allow Roeder to pursue a so-called "necessity defense." Roeder, who has publicly confessed to shooting Tiller, wants to claim at his trial that the slaying was justified to save the lives of unborn children.

If the judge rejects that defense, Roeder and his attorneys would not be allowed to make that argument to jurors. Similar efforts to use such a strategy in cases involving abortion-related violence have generally been banned, including at the 1993 trial of an Oregon woman accused of shooting and wounding Tiller.

Roeder, who has pleaded not guilty, confessed to the shooting on Nov. 9, telling The Associated Press he had no regrets about killing Tiller and suggesting the necessity defense should be the only contested issue at his trial. He declined to say when asked if he would kill another abortion provider if he were acquitted.

The "necessity defense" has rarely been used successfully in abortion cases. Roeder's attorneys — while arguing that their client has a right to present his theory of defense — have so far kept their own strategy secret.

Prosecutors have overwhelming evidence against Roeder, chiefly the witnesses who identified him during a July preliminary hearing as the shooter. Legal experts have said prosecutors likely will want to keep the trial limited to a straightforward murder case and avoid a discussion of abortion.

Judge in Killing of Abortion Practitioner George Tiller Considering Roeder Motions by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor December 21, 2009

Judge in Killing of Abortion Practitioner George Tiller Considering Roeder Motions
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 21, 2009

Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) -- The judge who is presiding over the case involving the killing of late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller will be considering motions tomorrow. The motions come from the defense of Scott Roeder, the militia activist accused of killing Tiller at his church this summer.

District Judge Warren Wilbert has yet to rule on a request for a change of venue for the trial and another motion to allow Roeder to use a justification defense.

The defense would argue that he was justified in killing Tiller because Tiller's death would result in saving the lives of unborn children.

Roeder was not affiliated with any pro-life organizations and the pro-life movement has soundly condemned his shooting and pointed out that Tiller was close to having his medical license revoked -- which could have put him out of business legitimately.

Roeder, a 51-year-old man from Kansas City, is charged with one count of premeditated, first-degree murder in Dr. George Tiller's death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two people at Tiller's church on his way out of the building after the shooting.

Once Judge Wilbert issues rulings on the motions, the trial date is planned for January 11.

Since the killing, Roeder has confessed to killing Tiller.

"I choose this action I am accused of because of the necessity defense," Roeder told The Associated Press in November. "I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them."

But if Judge Wilbert rejects the defense, Roeder and his attorneys would be forced to rely on some other line of reasoning during the trial. Since similar trials have seen shooters bids to use the defense rejected, it is expected that will occur with Roeder, who has pleaded not guilty.

Some observers believe Roeder's attorneys will eventually settle on a voluntary manslaughter charge request, which is defined in Kansas as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

Meanwhile, the AP reports that David Leach, an Iowa based activist, is preparing motions to help Roeder use the necessity defense in case he decides to represent himself in court.

Roeder faces a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years if he is found guilty on the first-degree murder charge. A conviction on a charge of voluntary manslaughter for someone like Roeder, who has no criminal history, could bring a sentence of 5 years in prison, AP indicates.

Church member Gary Hoepner was the first witness called at a preliminary hearing for Roeder in July and said Roeder pointed a gun at Tiller's head and killed him.

“I wasn't sure if it was a cap gun or what," Hoepner said, noting that he wasn't certain that the assailant had a real gun to use to hurt Tiller. “I couldn't believe what I was seeing."

Hoepner said he and Tiller were discussing Tiller's fondness of doughnuts at the time he was shot.

"I've got a gun and I'll shoot you'," Hoepner recalled Roeder saying. "I believed him and I stopped."

After the incident, Hoepner told the court that he wrote down the license plate of Roeder's vehicle and informed police.

The court also heard that Roeder attended Tiller's church several times before, including the Sunday prior to the church service during which he allegedly shot the abortion practitioner.

Roeder says he is not mentally ill now, although his family members have told the media that he has suffered from mental health issues throughout his life. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his late teens and Roeder blames that on drug use at the time.

Tiller was one of the few abortion practitioners in the United States to do late-term abortions and he had been a subject of legal and peaceful efforts by pro-life groups at the time of the shooting.

Organizations had been working to get the state medical board to revoke Tiller's license because of allegations that some of the abortions he did violated state law but not having an independent physician certify they were necessary.

Hundreds of pro-life groups condemned the Tiller shooting immediately or in the days following, but that didn't stop abortion advocates from claiming they supported the killing or calling the majority of Americans who take a pro-life view "terrorists."

National Right to Life, a large nationwide pro-life group, said it "extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller's family over this loss of life."

"The National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal," it said.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has already come under fire for ignoring one tip about Scott Roeder, the alleged shooter of late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. Now, new reports indicate the FBI also ignored a letter sent by Roeder relatives warning he may engage in a violent action.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it received a letter more than a month before Tiller was shot and killed warning that he would harm an abortion practitioner.

FBI spokeswoman Bridget Patton confirmed to the Associated Press that Mark Archer, who is fighting with his wife for custody over a child that Roeder fathered, sent a letter detailing his concerns.

Judge Mulls Pivotal Issues in Kan. Abortion Trial

Judge Mulls Pivotal Issues in Kan. Abortion Trial

Judge mulls 'necessity defense' in upcoming hearing in Kan. abortion shooting case

By ROXANA HEGEMAN

The Associated Press

WICHITA, Kan.

A judge is weighing a critical legal question in the case of a man who confessed to killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers: Can the man claim at his trial that the slaying was justified to save the lives of unborn children?

Scott Roeder, a 51-year-old Kansas City, Mo., man, is charged with one count of premeditated, first-degree murder in Dr. George Tiller's death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers during the May 31 melee in the foyer of the doctor's Wichita church.

District Judge Warren Wilbert has yet to rule on a bevy of court filings that will set the course for the Jan. 11 trial, and will consider some of them in court Tuesday. But the documents offer a glimpse at the unfolding legal strategies in a case played out amid the rancorous debate over abortion.

Since the killing, Roeder has confessed to reporters that he shot Tiller, while his anti-abortion allies have urged Roeder to present the so-called "necessity defense" in hopes that an acquittal could turn the larger debate over abortion in their favor.

"I choose this action I am accused of because of the necessity defense," Roeder told The Associated Press in November. "I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them."

If the judge rejects that defense, Roeder and his attorneys would not be allowed to make that argument to jurors at his trial. Similar efforts to use such a strategy in cases involving abortion-related violence have generally been banned — perhaps most relevantly at the 1993 trial of an Oregon woman accused of shooting and wounding Tiller.

Roeder, who has pleaded not guilty, confessed to the shooting on Nov. 9, telling The Associated Press he has no regrets for killing Tiller and suggesting the necessity defense should be the only contested issue of his trial. Roeder declined to say when asked if he would kill another abortion provider if he were acquitted.

The so-called "necessity defense" has rarely been successfully used in abortion cases. Roeder's attorneys — while arguing that their client has a right to present his theory of defense — have so far kept their own strategy secret.

Legal experts and others close to the case have suggested his public defenders may actually be aiming at a conviction on a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter — defined in Kansas as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

That would be an easier argument to make to jurors than a necessity defense, which is unlikely to win, said Melanie Wilson, a University of Kansas law professor. A necessity defense, also known as the "choice of evils defense," requires proof that the defendant reacted to an immediate danger, an argument that is undermined by abortion's legality.

"The defendant has a right to a defense and so if he can put forth evidence that shows adequate facts to support such a defense, well then he should be allowed to do so," Wilson said. "I suspect that is what the big fight is going to be at the motions hearing."

A wild card is Roeder's close relationship with Iowa anti-abortion activist Dave Leach, who has been separately crafting a necessity defense for Roeder — including writing motions that could be used if Roeder were to represent himself. Leach said the goal is to encourage states to criminalize abortion again or at least bolster a defense that would allow activists to block clinic entrances without fear of arrest.

"My strong conviction is that this case presents an opportunity, through education of both the public and the courts, to end abortion," Leach said.

Prosecutors want to block such notions, citing a criminal trespass case involving an abortion clinic in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that allowing someone's personal beliefs to justify criminal activity would be "tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."

Roeder's two public defenders responded that Roeder's case differs because trespassing at an abortion clinic is just a potential temporary interruption of the practice of abortion, whereas Roeder succeeded in shutting down Tiller's clinic.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Roeder faces a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years. A conviction for voluntary manslaughter for someone with as little criminal history as Roeder could bring a sentence closer to five years if the judge follows state sentencing guidelines.

Roeder's public confession notwithstanding, prosecutors have overwhelming evidence against him — chiefly the eyewitnesses who identified Roeder as the shooter during a preliminary hearing in July. Legal experts say the prosecution will likely want to keep the case limited to a straightforward murder case and avoid a discussion of abortion.

"The defense would rather have it be a trial of abortion — particularly late-term abortion — and not a trial of the killing of Dr. Tiller," said Richard Levy, a law professor at the University of Kansas. "It is often a sound defense strategy to go after the victim."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005 By Dave Leach The Covenant News ~ December 19, 2009

Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005

By Dave Leach The Covenant News

~ December 19, 2009

Third in a series of simplified excerpts from the pro se brief being submitted by Scott Roeder to answer how the Necessity Defense justifies his shooting of Wichita’s late term abortionist, George Tiller, May 31. Judge Wilbert will hold a hearing December 22 whether to order Scott not to say a word to the jury about the only contested issue of the trial, and Scott’s only defense: the Necessity Defense. Judge Wilbert’s email address is wwilbert@dc18.org. Scott’s trial is scheduled for January 11. Future installments: The Theory that Stopping Kansas Abortions can’t be Justified because Abortion is Legal Originated in a Grammatical Misunderstanding in 1993 <> Not Even Roe Says Whether Abortion is Genocide is “Irrelevant” <> Preamble Constitutionally Protects “Our Posterity”, Making Roe Unlawful from its Inception <> Imminence and Alternatives <> Due Process Denied, when the Only Contested Issue of a Jury Trial is Hidden from the Jury

2005 was when federal law established the full humanity and personhood of the unborn.

That met the condition laid out in Roe v. Wade for its own “collapse”.

That removed any legal protection of abortion at any stage of gestation, freeing states to once again pass laws against abortion.

That established the unborn as “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

That not only frees states to make abortion a crime, but prohibits states from legalizing abortion!

That makes all abortion prevention precedents, from before 2005, out of date.

That includes City of Wichita v. Tilson, a 1993 case in Kansas, where Scott Roeder is on trial, that says abortion is not “legally recognizable as a harm” because it is “constitutionally protected”. Therefore, the Court said, it is illogical for prolifers who prevented a few abortions by blocking abortuary doors to argue that they were preventing far greater harm than the small harm of trespassing that they caused. It is illogical because abortion is not a harm. Well, what they mean is, it may in fact be a great terrible harm, as great as the prolifers say: it may be the cruelest, most barbaric genocide of all human history. But that is “irrelevant” because it is not “legally recognizable as a harm.”

Well, now it is.

It has been for 4 years now.

Not only is abortion now “legally recognizable as a harm”, it is legally recognizable as unlawful.

Up until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional, courts must conform their rulings to them. No court has declared this law unconstitutional, so Roe v. Wade, and the entire legality of abortion, has been reversed since 2005. It may not appear so now, but that is only because inconsistencies between law and case law are not resolved instantly; the only mechanism for resolving them is a case that requires those inconsistencies to be resolved. This is that case.


LACI AND CONNOR’S LAW

“LACI AND CONNOR’S LAW”, 18 U.S.Code 1841, satisfied the criteria in Roe v. Wade for Roe’s “collapse” by establishing, as a matter of fact as well as of legal recognition, the humanity of the unborn. A U.S. law is superior in authority to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, in the sense that the Supreme Court must obey it, until such point as the Court declares it unconstitutional. Not that there is any conflict between Laci’s Law and Roe v. Wade, requiring courts and citizens to decide which to obey. The two are in harmony. Laci’s Law does not attack Roe, but satisfies the conditions which Roe invited fact finders to establish.

Laci’s Law states that it should not be construed to “permit prosecution” of abortion, but this statement should not be construed to prevent the “collapse” of Roe. The “collapse” of Roe will not “permit prosecution” of abortion; it will only free states (or indeed Congress) to “permit prosecution” of abortion, by passing laws making abortion a crime. Outlawing abortion is clearly a process with two distinct steps, and Laci’s Law clearly takes only the first.

“Laci’s Law”:

(a) Defines killing of an unborn child as homicide.

(b) Provides that intentionally killing an unborn child is punishable under the federal murder statutes, for “intentionally killing...a human being”.

(c) Provides an “abortion exception” clause which declines to penalize elective abortions. (“Elective” means the abortion was voluntary. That is, the baby didn’t volunteer, but the mother did. In other words, Laci’s Law makes it a crime to kill an unborn baby by assaulting the mother when she does not want to be assaulted. But the mother is still allowed to voluntarily pay a doctor to assault her baby.)

(d): Defines terms in (a): “the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

In short, Laci's Law defines the humanity of unborn humans as equal with that of born humans, even though it does not penalize their murders equally.

The opponents of §1841 saw it as the end of Roe. For example, Mr. Nadler, opposing the law, stated: “(I)f the law recognizes that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception......then the law must recognize and protect the rights of that person on a legal basis with the rights of the adult pregnant woman. If our laws recognize that, then there can be no right to choose, because, logically, terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stages would be killing a fully legal person.” Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 150 Cong. Rec. H637-05, *H640. Several other frantic pro-abortion lawmakers prophesied Roe’s doom. Author Amanda Bruchs states of § 1841: “....unborn children whether viable or not, will be considered as human beings, and therefore, whole as persons as victims of crime.... [Laci's Law] extension of legal personhood to a[n] [unborn child] is entirely unprecedented in the history of federal law... .[The Supreme Court] could be forced to do what it has avoided for over thirty years: determine the ultimate value of the life interest and decide when that life begins.” (Clash of Competing Interests: Can the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Over Thirty Years of Settled Abortion Law Co-Exist Peacefully?, 55 Syracuse L. Rev. 133 (2004) See also Wilmering, R.R., Note, Federalism, The Commerce Clause 80 Tns . L_J. 1989 (2005); Speizer, E., Recent Developments in Reproduction Health Law....41 Cal. W.L. Rev. 507 (2005); Kole, T. and Kadetsky, L., Recent Developments, 39 Harvard Journal Legislation 215 (2002))

The Supreme Court can determine no such thing. The Court cannot “decide when life begins.” Congress has done it. The Court need only do its job and step out of the way of the law.

No case finds that unborn life, at any stage, is not human life. Since Laci's Law, no court can do this.

(Of course, many of the babies saved from George Tiller by the defendant were “viable” or “third trimester” babies, who have always been considered whole legal human persons, even by Roe v. Wade.)


THE “COLLAPSE” CLAUSE

The Collapse Clause in Roe v. Wade has two parts. The first part says "[Texas argues] that the 'fetus' is a person.. .If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [legality of abortion], of course, collapses, for the right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Constitution].”

What the second part says about past legislation, applies to future legislation: “[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” In other words, had previous law recognized the unborn as “persons in the whole sense”, Roe could not have legalized abortion. In other words, at such time as future laws establish the unborn as “persons”, the teeter upon which Roe totters will leave Roe alone and crashing down.

If the definition of the unborn as “homo sapiens” (18 U.S.C. § 1841(d) does not satisfy the clear plain meaning and invitation of the Collapse Clause, then the Clause has no meaning, which would raise doubts whether any other part of Roe, or which part, has any meaning. Federal law now recognizes the unborn “as persons in the whole sense”. Roe therefore, by its own terms, “collapses”. It must be overruled.

NEXT: Roe’s Collapse Clause is a Doe in Estrus, and Laci’s Law is a 20 Point Buck.


Brief Series: Necessity Defense

1st: Not All George Tiller's Abortions were 'Legal'

2nd: Abortion Hasn't Been 'Constitutionally Protected' for 18 Years!

3rd: Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005


Dave Leach
Author of Roeder’s pro se brief, with input from many.
Contact him at:
137 E. Leach
Des Moines IA 50315
cell 515/480-3398
E-mail: AcknowledgeHimN2010@Saltshaker.US.
Website: http://www.Saltshaker.US/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm

Abortion Hasn't Been 'Constitutionally Protected' for 18 Years! By Dave Leach The Covenant News ~ December 17, 2009

Abortion Hasn't Been 'Constitutionally
Protected' for 18 Years!

By Dave Leach

The Covenant News ~ December 17, 2009


Second in a series of excerpts from the pro se brief being submitted by Scott Roeder to answer how the Necessity Defense justifies his shooting of Wichita’s late term abortionist, George Tiller, May 31. His trial is scheduled for January 11. Slight changes are made to make the excerpt more readable to non-lawyers. Technical citations are simplified or omitted. Future installments will include: Federal Law Caused Roe’s “collapse” in 2005 <> The Theory that Stopping Kansas Abortions can’t be Justified because Abortion is Legal Originated in a Grammatical Misunderstanding in 1993 <> Not Even Roe Says Whether Abortion is Genocide is “Irrelevant” <> Preamble Constitutionally Protects “Our Posterity”, Making Roe Unlawful from its Inception <> Imminence and Alternatives <> Due Process Denied, when the Only Contested Issue of a Jury Trial is Hidden from the Jury

By Dave Leach, author of Roeder’s pro se brief, with input from many. Contact him at Roeder@Saltshaker.US. Website: http://www.Saltshaker.US/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm

The view that Abortion is constitutionally protected may have seemed true in 1993. That’s when the Kansas Supreme Court said so in a case quoted by Scott Roeder’s prosecutor, called City of Wichita v. Tilson.

But a Supreme Court justice explained in 2003 how that ceased being true in 1992.

The justice: Scalia. The case: Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia explained how the Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, abandoned Roe’s position that abortion is a “fundamental right”. (When a court says something is a “fundamental right”, that is a court’s way of saying it is “constitutionally protected”.)

Scalia proves the right of a woman to choose to hire someone to kill her unborn child stopped being “constitutionally protected” in two ways. First, he pointed out that Casey did not once describe abortion as a “fundamental right”.

Second, Scalia pointed out that Casey said states did not need to “narrowly tailor” their abortion laws “to serve a compelling state interest”. In courtroom thinking, states can get out of all that “narrow tailoring” only after abortion is no longer “constitutionally protected”.

(You don’t need to understand these strange words to understand the rest of this article, but in case you are curious, here’s what they mean: let’s take the example of freedom of religion, colliding with a religion that worships by taking drugs. In a 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, a court said peyote use can be outlawed even if it is a religious ritual. However, the Constitution protects belief in the ritual. But because religion is a “fundamental right”, any law limiting such worship must “serve the compelling state interest” of controlling illegal drugs, and the law must be “narrowly tailored” to serve that state interest in the way that “least restricts” religious practices. Courts call this the “strict scrutiny” test.)

Here is the way Scalia explained it in 2003: “We have since rejected Roe' s holding that regulations of abortion must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ....and thus, by logical implication, Roe' s holding that the right to abort an unborn child is a ‘fundamental right.’ .... (not once describing abortion as a ‘fundamental right’ or a ‘fundamental liberty interest’).”

This reasoning withdraws “Constitutional protection” from abortion at any stage of gestation.

Even before this Supreme Court retreat from “constitutionally protecting” abortion, two appellate courts noticed that Roe v. Wade never “constitutionally protected” abortions on babies after “viability”. (“Viability” is when a baby can usually survive outside the womb. George Tiller made a name for himself on the corpses of babies he killed after they could have survived outside the womb.) Two other courts said the same thing after 1992, apparently not noticing the issue was moot since constitutional protection had been withdrawn from all abortions.

The four courts didn’t directly say “Roe never constitutionally protected abortion after viability.” They said it indirectly, something like this: “The fetuses saved by these fanatical prolifers weren’t viable. Therefore, abortions on them were constitutionally protected.”

A 1993 Illinois court said “The abortions performed at Concord West were confined to the period up to 12 weeks gestation. No evidence was presented that the fetus is viable at this point. Thus, the abortions performed at Concord West were constitutionally protected.”

A 1988 Pennsylvania court said “defendants should have been permitted to adduce evidence of viability.” A 1997 Mississippi case said the same thing.

The Kansas Tilson case mentioned the Pennsylvania case. It says “the defendants were convicted of criminal trespass. They alleged that the crimes were justified to prevent the loss of a human life. The court held that the necessity defense was unavailable because a woman's right to obtain an abortion was protected by the United States Constitution. The court stated: ‘As we have noted, pre-viability abortion is lawful by virtue of state statute and federal constitutional law. The United States Supreme Court, from Roe through its progeny, has consistently held that the state's interest in protecting fetal life does not become compelling, and cannot infringe on a woman's right to choose abortion, until the fetus is viable.’ .... Appellants do not suggest that viability and conception are simultaneous occurrences. We find that a legally sanctioned activity cannot be termed a public disaster."

A fourth court, in a 1988 New York City case, People v. Archer, said Roe had rendered any abortion that occurred in the first trimester a fundamental constitutional right. However, “the question is by no means free from doubt.” But if indeed abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right”, the Court reasoned, a first trimester abortion could not constitute a harm, much less “murder” as the defendants believe. However, the judge said he was willing to allow the jury to hear about the Necessity Defense if the defendants were able to show that the abortion office “was about to perform other than first trimester abortions on” the date of their “protest”.

The judge talked about the post-viability babies – the older babies, killed by late term abortions such as George Tiller was known for. He said the New York legislature had made their abortions “justifiable”, though otherwise they would be criminal acts. But “abortion can still constitute a moral ‘injury to be avoided’, under § 35.05 of the Penal Law, the judge said, because citizens of ordinary intelligence and morality remain free both as individuals and as jurors, to find it so.

The prosecutor had argued that allowing the rescuers to explain the Necessity Defense to the jury would be a state’s interference with abortion. (What an admission that the prosecutor expected the jury to acquit if the jury were entrusted with the facts!) But the judge answered that the prosecutor had even more discretion than the judge, to give the defendants their rights: the prosecutor had discretion not to prosecute the rescuers at all! Therefore it is absurd to accuse any court of interfering with any “constitutional right” just because it follows Due Process in trying defendants accused of interfering with it.

Another court accepted the prosecutor’s accusation that if the court allowed the defendants to present their defense to the jury, that would be state interference with the constitutional right to abortion. (State v. Clowes, 1990, Oregon.) The court actually said that the defendants met all the legal requirements for being allowed the defense, but giving the defendants Due Process “would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade”!

Here’s how they said it: “trial court found that defendants had proffered sufficient evidence on all the elements of the choice of evils defense, generally, to submit it to the jury. Nevertheless, the trial court granted the state's motion to exclude evidence of the defense on the ground that to admit such evidence would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.”

Depriving a defendant of a constitutional right to present a defense that the court has ruled is available to him as a matter of law, in deference to a purely speculative concern about a possible passive or implicit interference with some unknown person’s conflicting constitutional right, cannot be a correct course of action for any court.

Conclusion: It is clear that no abortion has enjoyed Constitutional Protection, in the view of the U.S. Supreme Court, since 1992.

It is even more clear that post-viability abortions have no Constitutional protection in the view of any court.



Contact:
Dave Leach
137 E. Leach
Des Moines IA 50315
cell 515/480-3398
AcknowledgeHimN2010@Saltshaker.US.

Hearing Set for Motions in Roeder Trial

By Robert Marin (WICHITA, Kan.)

A hearing is set for Tuesday, Dec. 22nd, for several motions in the trial of Scott Roeder, including a defense request for a change of venue.

Roeder is charged with shooting and killing Wichita abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Roeder confessed to the crime in an interview with the Associated Press in November.

Attorneys for Roeder say he cannot get a fair trial because of all the publicity in the case. During the hearing the judge could also discuss motions regarding evidence in the trial and how jury selection will be handled.

Jury selection in Roeder's trial is scheduled to begin January 11th, 2010; that process is expected to take about a week. Once a jury is selected in the case, the trial will begin. As with many high-profile court cases, there is the potential for these dates to change with further hearings and motions.

Eyewitness News will be following all aspects of the trial. Expect us to bring you the latest here on kwch.com, on Eyewitness Newscasts and on Twitter (KWCH12).

Judge To Hear Motions In Roeder Case Next Week

Judge To Hear Motions In Roeder Case Next Week

A judge is scheduled to hear several pre-trial motions in the case against Scott Roeder next week. Roeder is accused of killing abortion doctor George Tiller earlier this year.

Reporter: Jared Cerullo
Email Address: jared.cerullo@kake.com

December 18, 2009

When Scott Roeder appears in court next week for a pre-trial hearing, a legal case about racial diversity may help guide the judge. Roeder is accused of killing Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller earlier this year.

The case involves how jurors are picked. Roeder's defense plans to ask judge Warren Wilburt next week not to allow prosecutors to strike jurors out of the pool based on their views on abortion alone. It's an uphill battle that will likely be hard to prove.

"It's a case where the prosecution perempted, or challenged without any reason, all African-Americans who were on the jury panel," said legal analyst Warner Eisenbise.

The question is, will that same reasoning translate into jurors views on abortion? A motion hearing scheduled for next week in Roeder's case will deal with how jurors are picked. With the political implications of the subject, Roeder's attorneys don't want the prosecution to be allowed to strike potential jurors based solely on their views about abortion.

"The Supreme Court ruled they could not do that," said Eisenbise. "They had to have reason, cause to challenge, rather than to peremptively challenge. A peremptive challenge is a challenge that you don't have to have a reason for."

In the Kentucky case, the four defendants in the case were black, but all of the jurors were white.

"We lawyers always try to have jurors we feel would be on our side in any case," Eisenbise said. "But carrying it too far is not proper and this is what i think is happening here in Wichita."

Eisenbise believes a fair jury can be chosen without a court order not allowing the state to perempt any potential jurors.

"It's ridiculous to think that they can keep the prosecution in this case from peremptorily challenging someone they feel might be pro-choice."

The judge will take up the motion on Tuesday. He'll also hear a motion for change of venue, but Eisenbise says that will also most likely be denied. Roeder's trial is scheduled to start on January 11.

CBS Gives Late-Term Abortion Doctor Softball Forum to Justify His 'Cause'

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

CBS Gives Late-Term Abortion Doctor Softball Forum to Justify His 'Cause'

By Brad Wilmouth

Created 2009-12-06 07:55

Friday’s CBS Evening News devoted a full story, filed by correspondent Jim Axelrod, to late-term abortion Doctor LeRoy Carhart – who stepped in to succeed Dr. George Tiller, known for performing many partial birth abortions, after his murder last spring – during which Carhart was given several soundbites to justify his work. At one point gushing that "Until I can find someone else to care for women, they still need somebody to care for them," he later asserted: "I totally believe in this cause every bit as much as I did believe every morning when I got up in the military that I was doing the right thing. And if dying for this cause is what I have to do, then that`s what I will do."

But CBS’s Axelrod never used the term "partial birth abortion," or described the horrific procedure involved in some abortions. And, while anchor Katie Couric acknowledged that Carhart’s work is "controversial" as she introduced the report, she also conveyed a more positive connotation as she referred to his and Dr. Tiller's activities as a "cause," as did Carhart himself. Couric:

Few issues divide Americans more than abortion. It`s a conflict that`s erupted in deadly violence. Last spring, Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors who provided late-term abortions, was murdered in Kansas. Tiller`s clinic is now closed, but his cause has been taken up by a former colleague. Tonight, national correspondent Jim Axelrod has an inside look at his controversial practice outside Omaha.

At one point, as Axelrod used a clip of himself talking with a pro-life protester outside Carhart’s clinic, instead of relaying to viewers that "most" strong critics do not "condone violence" against abortion doctors, Axelrod instead used the more odd choice of words that "not all" such critics "condone violence," as if perhaps most do believe in violence: "While not all of his strongest critics condone violence, Carhart is nothing short of evil to them."

Axelrod introduced his report by recounting the precautions Carhart must take to avoid being attacked both as he drives to work and after he arrives. Describing Carhart as someone who "believes in his work and doesn`t hide what goes on inside this building," the CBS correspondent passed on Carhart’s contentions that the abortions he performs either involve fetal health problems or mental health problems by the women: "Carhart says about half the abortions he performs between the 22nd and 28th week are due to fetal health issues. Half, the mother`s mental health. After the 28th week, it`s 90 percent fetal health."

Axelrod soon recounted the case of one woman who is "aborting because she put her last baby up for adoption and had a nervous breakdown. She`s waited so long this time, she says, because she didn`t have the money."

Carhart justified the abortion of her child: "Which I think is probably a rational choice on her part. ... I mean, she went through it, she already knows the amount of trauma that she went through with the last child."

While Axelrod was not shown in any clip directly confronting Carhart with any arguments against abortion, when the CBS correspondent did devote a clip to an abortion opponent who was protesting outside Carhart’s clinic, Axelrod first brought up religious belief – instead of a more solid physical argument – as he asked the man if Carhart was "going to hell," and then asserted that "it`s the law of the land that he`s allowed to do what he`s doing." On the bright side, he did at least set up the pro-life protester to argue that just because something is legal that does not mean that it’s right, or that it should remain legal:

JIM AXELROD, TALKING TO PROTESTER: Is Dr. Carhart going to hell?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER: I don`t know. It doesn`t look good.

AXELROD: While not all of his strongest critics condone violence, Carhart is nothing short of evil to them.

AXELROD, TALKING TO PROTESTER It`s the law of the land that he`s allowed to do what he`s doing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER: It was the law of the land in Germany to corral Jews and gas them. It was the law of the land to make black people slaves.

Axelrod then ended his report with a strong soundbite from Dr. Carhart:

AXELROD: The lines are clearly drawn, and LeRoy Carhart stopped trying to change his critics` minds a long time ago.

CARHART: I totally believe in this cause every bit as much as I did believe every morning when I got up in the military that I was doing the right thing. And if dying for this cause is what I have to do, then that`s what I will do.

AXELROD: In fact, the only thing that will change for now is the route Dr. Carhart takes to work.

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Friday, December 4, CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Few issues divide Americans more than abortion. It`s a conflict that`s erupted in deadly violence. Last spring, Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors who provided late-term abortions, was murdered in Kansas. Tiller`s clinic is now closed. But his cause has been taken up by a former colleague. Tonight, national correspondent Jim Axelrod has an inside look at his controversial practice outside Omaha.

JIM AXELROD: Not every doctor takes a different route to work each day.

DR. LEROY CARHART: Anything that`s habit forming is deadly.

AXELROD: Nor has a metal detector and bulletproof glass at his office.

CARHART: People out there want to kill us.

AXELROD: But not every doctor is LeRoy Carhart, a 68-year-old former Air Force surgeon who performs up to 3,500 abortions a year-

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PROTESTER: A child should never be separated from its mother!

AXELROD: -while activists protest at his clinic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PROTESTER PRAYING: Have mercy.CARHART: Until I can find someone else to care for women, they still need somebody to care for them.

AXELROD: That LeRoy Carhart believes in his work and doesn`t hide what goes on inside this building here in Nebraska is pretty plain to see. You also might find it a bit surprising given what happened to his close friend and colleague earlier this year. When George Tiller was shot at his church last May, he was America`s best-known provider of late-term abortions, those ending pregnancies after 22 weeks, a point when the fetus might survive outside the womb. For more than a decade, Carhart spent a week each month assisting at Tiller`s clinic.

CARHART: When he approached me to come work with him, he said, you know, "Both of us are very vulnerable targets, and I feel the need to have somebody else to carry on what I`m doing."

AXELROD: After Tiller`s death, Carhart started doing late-term abortions at his own clinic, on average one every 10 days. Carhart says about half the abortions he performs between the 22nd and 28th week are due to fetal health issues. Half, the mother`s mental health. After the 28th week, it`s 90 percent fetal health.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I did.

AXELROD: Women like Sue, an unmarried 28-year-old mother of three come from around the country. Sue`s somewhere between 21 and 23 weeks pregnant. She`s aborting because she put her last baby up for adoption and had a nervous breakdown. She`s waited so long this time, she says, because she didn`t have the money.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At this point, this is the easier decision for me. And that may sound selfish to people, but I`m having a lot of complications that aren`t good for my health.

CARHART: Which I think is probably a rational choice on her part.

AXELROD: A rational choice?

CARHART: Yes. I mean, she went through it, she already knows the amount of trauma that she went through with the last child.AXELROD: So you wouldn`t have any problem performing an abortion on her?

CARHART: No. Certainly not at 21 weeks.

AXELROD: Is Dr. Carhart going to hell?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER: I don`t know. It doesn`t look good.

AXELROD: While not all of his strongest critics condone violence, Carhart is nothing short of evil to them.

AXELROD, TALKING TO UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER It`s the law of the land that he`s allowed to do what he`s doing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER: It was the law of the land in Germany to corral Jews and gas them. It was the law of the land to make black people slaves.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PROTESTER: No choice!

AXELROD: The lines are clearly drawn, and LeRoy Carhart stopped trying to change his critics` minds a long time ago.

CARHART: I totally believe in this cause every bit as much as I did believe every morning when I got up in the military that I was doing the right thing. And if dying for this cause is what I have to do, then that`s what I will do.

AXELROD: In fact, the only thing that will change for now is the route Dr. Carhart takes to work. Jim Axelrod, CBS News, Bellevue, Nebraska.

---

Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/12/06/cbs-gives-late-term-abortion-doctor-softball-forum-justify-his-work

Is The Doctor Killing In Wichita Kansas A Case Of Domestic Terrorism?

Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence
[1] intended to intimidate or cause terror
[2] for the purpose of “exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies.”

[1] The term “terror” is largely used to indicate clandestine, low-intensity violence that targets civilians and generates public fear. Thus “terror” is distinct from asymmetric warfare, and violates the concept of a common law of war in which civilian life is regarded – wikipedia

***In accordance with U.S. counter-terrorism policy, the FBI considers terrorists to be criminals.



Follow the link and take a look at the commments.