An Omaha woman was convicted Tuesday of abuse of a vulnerable adult in connection with the death of her disabled 23-year-old daughter. The woman had used a bed sheet to tie the door to her daughter's bedroom shut from the outside. The daughter died over a week after injuries she sustained in a fire while her mother was out of the house.
The mother had no intent to kill her daughter. The mother's goal was to keep her daughter from getting out of the house and wandering around the neighborhood in a motorized wheelchair (to which the daughter had been confined after being injured in a 2003 auto accident). The mother told her sixteen-year-old son she was going to be gone for about 20 minutes, but she did not return till more than 8 hours later. The teenager said he'd checked on his sister a couple of times but left the house for dinner just before 7 p.m.
The defense attorney claimed (1) that the statute in question didn't even apply in this case; (2) that since the mother's motive was to protect her daughter, not harm her daughter, there was no intent to abuse, therefore no abuse; (3) that the daughter could have escaped from another door in the room; (4) that the daughter probably started the fire herself to get attention.
It was a bench trial. The judge rejected the defense attorney's first and second arguments, agreed with the prosecution that the other door was no escape route, as it had had its knobs removed, so the only way to get it open was to jimmy it, which the daughter from her wheelchair could not do, and ignored the claim that the daughter started the fire herself.
The mother was thus convicted but is out on bail. Her attorney is still claiming all 4 of the claims he made at trial and has vowed to appeal the judge's verdict.
Here's the real skinny: EVERYTHING THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAID IS IMMATERIAL. It's all irrelevant. The fact that the mother locked her daughter in by tying the main door shut and then left her alone for more than 8 hours in itself is sufficient to convict her of the crime for which she committed. Telling a teenager she was going to be gone for only 20 minutes but not coming back till more than eight hours later was irresponsible and unreasonable on its face. Leaving the care of someone unable to care for herself in the hands of a sixteen-year-old boy, even if it had been for only 20 minutes, is simply irresponsible. The law doesn't say the defendant had to intend to hurt the victim; the law says the defendant had to do an act that abused a vulnerable adult. That there was another door was immaterial, as for all practical purposes it, too, was locked--which the mother knew. Finally, saying the daughter probably started the fire herself is simply blaming the victim and is no valid argument against the mother's conviction.
I am perfectly well aware that all criminal defendants are entitled to make the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I am perfectly well aware that the defense attorney in this case is just doing his job to the best of his ability. None of that changes the fact that some of the things he alleged are contemptible and the rest are outright lies. It's no wonder people are losing faith in the legal system. The attorney's ethical charge is to do what's in his client's best interests, not to get his client acquitted at any cost. Sometimes serving the client's best interests should be accomplished by giving the client a reality check.
No comments:
Post a Comment