JavaFox

Actually, you're wrong.

But let me first concede to this: I was wrong in assuming that this case has been decided. Upon a careful re-reading of the article I linked to, I read that, indeed, you are right -- the Appeals Court did not merely reverse that woman's conviction. They also ordered a new trial. For this error I apologize.

However, I still maintain that you are wrong. First, the Appeals Court DID rule that fetus can be protected under the "defense-of-others." Here is what happened. In Kurr's first trial, the judge rejected the claim that she was defending her fetus, saying that she "could not use the 'defense of others' argument because the fetuses were not 'living human being[s] existing independent' of the defendant." Still follow me? So she was found guilty in her first trial.

Along comes the Michigan Court of Appeals, which overturned her conviction, ordered a new trial, AND ruled that "a defense of others jury instruction was appropriate here [...]" and "[a mother] may even use deadly force if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm." Those are not things to be decided by the new trial. They are new court opinions that make is possible FOR Kurr to HAVE a new trial. This court RULED that fetuses CAN be protected under the "defense-of-others" defense. The new jury in the new trial decides whether or not Kurr actually did "reasonably believe" her fetuses to be in danger. But the decision of whether or not these fetuses are covered by existing law has already been made.

Rayder

My brother's initials are CD, and I have the CloneCD program........

Vampyromaniac

how did I miss that line? Hehe, I thought that the new trial was going to be used as a test case to decide about the protection-of-others defense. Ah, well

Heh, that woman will prob get off now, eh?

Well, I think the ruling will probably be appealed, though. Maybe they'll say the language of the fetal protection act (on which the ruling was primarily based) isn't clear enough.
Or . . . I doubt the penalties under the fetal protection act would include the death sentence, so maybe they'll argue a mother shouldn't be allowed to basically carry out the death sentence in order to protect the fetus . . . .
I dunno . . . Lawyers usually don't sit still with big cases like this.

But still, why not wait until it's all done?

__________________

raid517

edit