Boston Criminal Attorney Blog

But faced with a crime this incomprehensible, all of us - singularly the jury selected for this case - must ask: What makes people act this way? What could drive a 17-year old boy to murder another student, in cold blood, - and this is the key - for no apparent reason whatsoever? There seem to be very few answers, but, legally, one must be chosen.

Among them:

1) Odgren is (ongoingly) mentally ill. This is as opposed to the claim that didn't understand the nature of his act, at the moment he committed it.

2) He is not mentally ill, but instead suffers from a condition that impaired his ability at the time he committed the crime, to understand that what he was doing was wrong and a criminal act. (The apparently planned defense of Asperger's Syndrome).

3) He is neither of the above. He is fully competent now, and was so at the time of the crime. He is simply evil.

For every person who feels that this boy deserves no defense, or should not be allowed to raise this particular defense, they should consider what they would want if he were their son. What if he truly does suffer from some defect that prevented him from either controlling his actions, or understanding the horrid nature of those actions? If true, what if that defense were prohibited, and he were convicted as a "normal," sane person, and thrown in prison with the worst of hardened criminals, who are otherwise sane and responsible for their crimes? Most people could surmise what would happen to a 17-year-old boy who is thrown into the General Population of a state prison filled with the worst and most violent criminals imaginable.

Would that serve justice? Most honest people would say "no." These are not the questions of a defense attorney seeking to play a legal trick. Nor are they the 'soft on crime' position of a liberal (I am a registered, and dedicated, Independent). Instead, they are questions that are required by our criminal justice system. They lay at the core of our system of justice.

If it were true that this boy did suffer from some kind of mental defect that prevented him from either controlling his actions or understanding their criminality, then the defense that his attorney reportedly plans (based on Asperger's Syndrome) is appropriate, and it should be raised. However, so too should the sentence be appropriate. If this defendant were found "Not Guilty" by reason of mental defect such as allegedly caused by Asperger's Syndrome, he should not -- and the public needs to understand that he would not - be freed to walk the streets again. He would be -- and should be -- committed to and incarcerated in a state hospital for the mentally ill, safely away from the rest of us. And that is where he would be held, until such time - if any - as psychiatrists determined that he is no longer a threat to society.

Posted by William D. Kickham | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Murder

Bookmark:

In my last entry that discussed the Lincoln, Massachusetts high school student accused of First Degree Murder in the killing of another student at Lincoln-Sudbury High School, I discussed John Odgren's attorney's reported plans to raise a defense of "Diminished Mental Capacity". However, that's a pretty general defense, and if it is ever going to succeed in any kind of trial like this one, the particulars of how and why the defendant could not understand that his acts were criminal, all have to be produced. If a defense attorney wants to win, he or she can't just 'claim' a general defense like this. The specifics have to be 'filled in.' Odgren's defense attorney reportedly plans to accomplish that here, by specifically claiming that his client suffers from "Asperger's Syndrome" - a mild form of autism that some observers in the medical community assert is associated with thoughts of weapons and violence. Odgren's defense intends to show that because he suffers from this disorder, he lacked the necessary mental capacity to premeditate the act or understand the criminality of his act - and hence, he cannot be guilty of the crime for which he is formally charged, Murder in the First Degree.

"What's the big deal?" some might say. If the jury doesn't find him guilty of First Degree Murder, they can find him guilty of Second Degree, or perhaps Third Degree Murder. Possibly, but the problem is, young John Odgren hasn't been charged with those crimes - he's only been indicted (so far) for First Degree Murder. His lawyer is trying to get that indictment thrown out, but so far, it hasn't been. Were Odgren to remain indicted and charged only for First Degree Murder, and if his attorney could, through this defense theory, establish reasonable doubt in the minds of sufficient jurors that Odgren lacked the necessary ability to understand the criminality of his act, then he might be acquitted of the charge of Murder in the First Degree.

That seems to enrage a lot of people. Frankly, many people are tired of seeing high-profile defendants accused of horrific crimes, acquitted on the basis of "theoretical" or specious defenses. I understand how such people might feel. Their attitude: "Lock 'em up, and throw away the key."

Posted by William D. Kickham | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Murder

Bookmark:

Welcome to my first blog post on this site. It's my hope that readers will find my thoughts, opinions, musings and postings to be educational, informative, and, sometimes hopefully, provocative toward a better criminal justice system in Massachusetts, and in other states.

For this first entry, I'd like to comment about a case soon to be tried in Cambridge, Middlesex County, involving charges of First Degree Murder against John Odgren, a 17-year-old boy at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School here in Massachusetts. My first blog on this case will discuss what his anticipated defense is, and why he is entitled to it. A second blog, later, will discuss arguments, pro and con, for what are called "Professional Juries."

Unlike many cases involving violent crimes in high schools, the high school in this case is nothing like so many of the underfunded, crowded, urban high schools in cities across the United States, where violence is sadly no stranger. It's a highly-rated public high school, in an upscale town, surrounded by well-to-do, wealthy communities. And unlike many such youthful defendants accused of violent crime in schools, this defendant is anything but a gang member or local 'tough'. He is a bespeckled, slight, and dimunitive student: To look at him, he resembles either Harry Potter or the proverbial "98-Pound Weakling."

Except this '98-Pound Weakling' lured a fellow student into a boys bathroom in the high school - a student he didn't even know and had apparently no history with at all - and plunged a carving knife into his heart five times, killing him on the spot. When he was done, Odgren openly admitted to bystanders that he killed the boy. He reportedly even helped to try and stop the bleeding in his victim's wounds. No one - neither his attorney nor his family - disputes that he committed this murder. His attorney has indicated that his legal defense - obvious to all attorneys watching - will be based on a legal principle known as "Lack of Criminal Responsibility." This defense essentially means that the defendant lacked the mental capacity to understand the criminality of his act, or to conform his actions to the law. This defense doesn't claim "insanity" - permanent or temporary. Rather, it advances the argument that an impediment in the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime, prevented him from either forming the necessary intent, or from understanding or appreciating the criminal nature of his act.

Posted by William D. Kickham | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Murder

Bookmark: