As far as the 60 year sentence, I agree it sounds kind of excessive to me. However, she endangered the life of 2 children so my sympathy is limited. Also, she was offered a very reasonable plea deal, considering the evidence, which she refused and decided to go to trial. So if she does end up getting 60 years I am sure I won’t feel very sorry for her.

To me the Judge is in the worst position here, especially with the amount of media attention this case has gotten. He knows every decision is going to be turned over and over, so he is being extra careful.

Alexander wasn’t in fear of her life, she was pissed beyond the ability for reasonable thought and judgement.

OK, I’ll buy that much so far, at least to create reasonable doubt.

Then the question(s) are –

Did she have a duty to retreat when able (after returning inside), IOW leave her residence ? I think maybe not. Was it an available option ? Perhaps. But not a duty.

“She attempted to invoke Florida’s “stand your ground” law, but a pre-trial judge ruled that she could have escaped through the front or back doors of her own home. ”

Is there no Castle Doctrine in Florida ? ‘Could have’ does not equal ‘Duty’. Wisdom, perhaps, but not ‘Duty’.

(from different source)

“State Attorney Angela Corey is now seeking a 60-year sentence, 20 years for each person present when the shot was fired.”

3 sequential charges for one act ? If there were 10 people standing nearby, does she get 200 years for one shot ?

Andrew says “Again, deadly force self-defense cannot rest solely on a subjective fear of harm.”

How is the question ‘ how much fear was she in’ EVER not ‘subjective’ ?

IMO, it boils down to ‘was she reasonably in fear of her life or grave bodily harm ?’ – from this guy standing there against the wall with his two kids, looking at a woman holding a gun on him.

I have to say ‘no’. thus, guilty. But for 20 years (with the ‘shot fired’ enhancement) for the one act, not 60.

And certainly she’s obligated to present as vigorous a defense of her client as possible.

That said, it’s still entirely consistent for me to believe the effort at suppression to be silly.

(Granted, I suppose I ought to wait to hear her argument first. Fair is fair.)

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

at the level of hubby’s head…

where his head had been just instants before.

So, no.

But at some point, aren’t attorneys supposed to be officers of the court? To attempt to exclude evidence from the crime scene itself without any basis in case law seems to be against the administration of justice, at best merely dilatory.

But making frivolous motion after frivolous motion is another thing entirely. You lose the judges respect. When you lose a judges respect then you set yourself up for trouble. He will scrutinize your motions, your citations etc. It can mean the difference between getting a critical ruling and losing it.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Whoever told her she should reject the plea deal, and even with the damning forensics the State had, go to trial and hope to be found not guilty of any crime whatsoever, really blew it. IMHO.

They will throw every remotely plausible defense at the court, and then at the jury if they feel the jury won’t hold it against their client. If it sticks, they may have done their job, which is to vigorously use the law to defend their client.

They may even have extended the legal understanding of a given statute or case-law.

A hearing (today) to decide to have another hearing (June 10)

to decide whether to have another hearing (self defense)

to decide whether to have another hearing (a trial)

And maybe a 4th hearing (trial).

“Here the defense argued that Alexander had the right to be in her home, did not have a duty to retreat”

This now means you can go out, get a gun ,and come right back armed and start shooting ?

“The defense then went on to make yet another remarkable self-defense law claim. Gay argued that as long as Alexander was in her home, if she is in imminent fear of harm she has a right to fire a gun.”

He means ‘to leave unimpeded, go get a gun, then come back and shoot it’ ?

Shows their desperation.

Any prosecutor worth his salt is going to tell the jury the narrative of Alexander walking back in from that garage, gun in hand, and the bullet hole in the wall, and she’s done.

Heck, even a sucky prosecutor could do that.

There’s simply no coming back from the fact that Alexander achieved a position of safety, armed herself with a firearm, returned to the site of conflict, allegedly articulated some graphic threat, and fired a bullet past the head of her husband and his two minor children.

Then she ran away, and her husband had to call the police.

Self defense? Not so much.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

How could you EVER get all the evidence from the crime scene excluded?

It seems to me that once a shot is fired, the police have every right to enter. Once it is determined that a crime may have occurred, they have every right to secure and collect evidence.

I can’t imagine the argument that would result in excluding all evidence from the crime scene once the police have been called to the scene with a report of a shot fired and the shooter on site.

How did she ever get them?

In any case, the actual trial is like in two months, and they have every opportunity to make the same immunity arguments at trial.

Which, of course, they have no chance of doing, as this simply wasn’t a self-defense shooting at all.

Unless, that is, they can get all the evidence suppressed. The defense lawyer’s “Royal Flush”.

I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on that last one.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense