Rov_Scam
50m ago
To be clear, they weren't given sentence reductions because the judge felt sorry for them, but to comply with an esoteric Supreme Court ruling regarding what evidence is required for robbery under the Hobbs Act to qualify for mandatory minimum sentences.
Rov_Scam
2hr ago
A few things. First, the Eggshell Skull Doctrine, strictly speaking, does not apply here, as it's a tort law doctrine that prohibits the defendant from limiting damages to what was foreseeable. In the first example, A punches B and causes a black eye, which is the foreseeable consequence of his action. In the second example, a punches B, but B has a medical condition that A doesn't know about that causes severe medical consequence. In both examples A is liable for battery, but in the second he can't argue that his damages should be limited to those for a black eye because he didn't know about B's medical condition. The criminal law regarding manslaughter seems analogous, but that the defendant cause the victim's death is an element of the offense, and the law doesn't require that such a death be foreseeable.
With that out of the way, it's clear he's guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There may be a chance that a jury views the whole situation as an accident, but it's a small chance. The problem for the prosecutor is that once you strip away all the culture war bullshit, there isn't a compelling case for pursuing this as aggressively as the prosecutor seems to be. The underlying battery was trying to knock the phone out of the guy's hand, which is about as minor as it can get. The blow that proved fatal was the result of inadvertent contact, the defendant had no criminal history, and he apparently cooperated with the police afterward. If I were the judge in this case I'd seriously consider excluding any evidence regarding the subject matter of the confrontation because I wouldn't want jurors deciding the outcome based on where they stand on the Israel-Palestine issue.
When it comes to sentencing, judges in California appear to have more discretion than in most places. I'm neither a criminal lawyer nor barred in California, but from reading the relevant statutes it looks like confinement to state prison was never on the table. I'm not going to list them here, but defendants convicted of involuntary manslaughter only go to state prison if certain factors are in play, none of which appear to be. Beyond that, the term of imprisonment is a maximum of either 2, 3, or 4 years. If certain other mitigating factors that don't apply here are in play, 2 is the max, and if certain aggravating factors that do apply here are in play, the max is 4. However, while the case for involuntary manslaughter is airtight, the case for the aggravating factors the prosecutor alleged wasn't. Taking them individually:
-
Personally inflicted great bodily injury True, but this is an element of the involuntary manslaughter charge; in any event, it's hard to imagine a case of involuntary manslaughter that wouldn't involve severe bodily injury. This would therefore only be applicable to the battery charge.
-
Defendant armed with and used a weapon Possible, but would require the jury to find that the defendant used the megaphone as a weapon, i.e. he intentionally struck Kessler with it.
-
Victim was particularly vulnerable Also possible, but would require that the jury find that Kessler was unusually susceptible to the attack in a manner which made the defendant's conduct distinctly worse than an ordinary example of the crime. I'm not sure what evidence the prosecution planned to present that would suggest Kessler was unusually vulnerable.
None of this ultimately matters because of the guilty plea, but I point it out here because there's a pretty good chance that the judge had more leeway with sentencing than he would have if the case had gone to verdict. If the jury hadn't found that any of the aggravating factors applied, then 3 years would be the default maximum sentence. But those are only maximum sentences. California doesn't offer any real guidelines, but when searching for the statutory text I came across a California defense attorney's website that says a conviction can mean:
Probation possible — up to 1 year county jail — common in lower-end cases where the court finds incarceration unnecessary
I can't vouch for the guy, but I'm assuming he didn't just put this up today to trick people into thinking the Alnaji decision was justified, so I'm going to assume that this is more or less accurate. I also took a look at PA's guidelines, to see how they compare. Here, Involuntary Manslaughter is a First Degree Misdemeanor with a theoretical maximum sentence of 5 years. For someone without a record, the recommended sentence is 5–8 months in county. In fact, statutory maximum aside, the maximum under the guidelines is 22 months. California isn't Pennsylvania, but the point is that a sentence of one year (6 months) plus three years of probation doesn't seem excessively lenient for the crime he was convicted of. You'd struggle to find a state where it's typical for someone with no priors to get four years in the state pen for involuntary manslaughter.
As to the disposition of the case, that's definitely strange. Whether this is an illegal judicial plea offer or not, I don't know. What I will say is that in the case you cited the judge knocked out enhancing factors before making the offer while in the present case the defendant pleaded guilty to all the counts in the indictment, but there could be other deficiencies I'm not aware of. But the procedural posture of this case is strange in general. The current judge was just assigned in March, after the original judge died. Yesterday's hearing only appeared on the calendar at the last minute. The case had already been listed for trial several times, but each time was continued at the last minute. And each trial date had requests for media presence and cameras. Judicial involvement in settlement negotiations is common in civil litigation but most states prohibit it in criminal matters. California, though, is one of the exceptions, though I don't know to what extent the practice is encouraged. The article says there were several meetings with the judge, and assuming these were similar to civil mediations, here's my theory on what transpired:
The judge knew that the matter was likely to become a media circus, and wanted the parties to settle. The prosecutor might not have been willing to make a deal, or wasn't willing to offer a deal that was acceptable to the defense. Over the course of the meetings it became clear that the judge's view of the case was that while a conviction was likely, the evidence the prosecution was giving him didn't support the sentence they were asking for. The prosecutor doesn't determine the sentence, and if a defendant thinks that he can get a better deal than what the prosecutor is offering by just pleading guilty and throwing himself at the mercy of the judge, there's nothing the prosecutor can do to stop him. In other words, the "offer" the judge made was the same as the sentence he would have given had the defendant been convicted at trial. The benefit to the defendant is not having to endure a two-week media circus with him as the star that is likely to yield the same result. They're scheduled to be in court in less than two weeks, but the media will be there, so they schedule an immediate hearing with little notice so that they can resolve the matter as quietly as possible. They still have to go back for formal sentencing in July, but unless something unusual happens that will be a formality that nobody cares about. Some people will still complain, but a lot fewer people are following the case now than would be if it goes to trial, and advocates for the prosecution have to deal with the elation of the guilty verdict followed by the disappointment of the sentence. The prosecutor, meanwhile, doesn't have to own anything. Everything is wrapped up in a nice little package.
I don't know what video you're looking at that shows his car was struck before he accelerated, but in any case I don't see how that's relevant. There's no universe where you have a legal justification for starting a block away before driving into a crowd at 30 miles an hour.
More options
Context Copy link