You make some very interesting points. There's another problem, and that is that life without the possibility of parole is not an option for a youth offender. If he has a sentence of 57 years, that would put him in prison without the possibility of parole until the age of 74. I think that is a problem because life expectancy ... a huge variable ... is 74 for some people. If Austin had a grandfather that died of heart disease at the age of, for example, 57, it might be argued that Austin's life expectancy is 57.
You make a very good point about the cases being separated. That seems like a very good defense move. In fact, the attack on the jogger may be a case that could successfully be argued as belonging in youth court. Without the subsequent case of abduction, murder and dismemberment, that case, viewed in isolation, may be considered one where appropriate counseling and monitoring would mitigate any potential for further violence.
I think it will become a very interesting legal argument, and since it is one of the first major tests of the new law that is intended to see youths tried as youths for crimes where the youth can be rehabilitated, I think the Judge has to tread carefully ... careful regarding precedents that could undermine the intent of the change in law ... which could open a can of worms in terms of appeals.
Regarding the attack on the jogger, I think the argument of murder could be made in the sense that a toxic substance was used ... and any toxic substance can be fatal, depending on the dosage. Still, without proof of the type and amount of toxic substance, assumptions are required ... and assumptions are not really admissable.
Another problem is that the jury pool is probably already tainted, so a change of venue will be required. The more I think about it, the more I see this as taking years to wind through the court system.
Yes, I agree with your points, if you think about it, the fact of the crime is not in dispute, it is only the penalty. His defense has an incentive to get him out as some point in his life, or at least have the possibility of getting out 40 years down the road, after assuming years and years of (fruitless, i believe, in this case) mental treatment.
We forget too that he may have been involved in either than 1st attack on the jogger or the little boy attempt. If the first jogger is linked to him, he was only 15.
I do not think the judge will want to take a chance of trying the JR case w the jogger bc there could be too much of a risk that if there is some legal issue w the case it could mess w everything. Plus I think it would be very prejudicial to AS to try the Jogger case at the same time. If you hear of the JR case there is no doubt you would find him guilty of the JR case. But if you JUST hear the jogger case you might think it was only an attempted rape. Even if they have evidence of the rag that still would not show murder. They probably just have the joggers account of the rag. I was really surprised they charged him w attempted murder bc I think if they would have arrested him in May when the jogger attack happened they would NOT have charged him with that. They only charged him w that bc of JR. As a matter of criminal law that probably is not right.
I think I heard this on Tricia's radio show but there is also the remote potential that the state could challenge what the Supreme Court said about not giving minors the death penalty. There is no question that had he been born 4 months later the state would have tried for the death penalty. How is it fair to apply the death penalty if someone committing the same crime to different standards just bc of thei birthday? What if he commits the crime a day before 18th birthday?
I doubt the state would try to raise it bc it would be very complicated procedurally and maybe not even possible (CO would have to change its statute and it probably would not apply to him so I do not think they could do that). But perhaps his case could change things for the future so that future teenagers who commit horrible crimes like this ( like the DC sniper too) can get death.
Legally he cannot be sentenced to life as a mandatory sentence but he will get life after the judge raises all the factors. The problem is that life in Colorado is only 40 years so unless CO changes their statute, he gets out in 40 years unless they can find more crimes to charge him with. So they got to find more stuff to add another 20 or 30 years. Indeed, even then, w life expectancy being what it is, he might get out in his 70s or 80s. They really have to find 2 crimes where he can serve 2 separate life terms to be on the safe side. I doubt the jogger case would be sufficient for a life term of 40 years.
Probably his lawyers got him zipped up on that jogger case. They will try to get confession thrown out bc they will not want the jogger confession in...especially if the physical evidence is not too strong. Absent the JR murder, all they got is someone grabbing someone in a public park in the middle of the day and putting a cloth over them. Still a crime, but absent the eyewitness and whatever link they found bw jogger and JR it is not a lot to go on especially if confession is thrown out. The link could be the cross, but if JR does not come in it won't matter. Also I wonder if jogger was able to identify him in a lineup. She never made a sketch so I wonder how well she got a look on him and whether she could identify him.
