Rachel got a deal, her charge was reduced from 1st degree murder to second degree murder. She will serve 20 years, instead of life without parole, which is the penalty for 1st degree murder in West Virginia.
Though she did agree to be charged as an adult, she really didn't have much of a choice there. As there was significant evidence that she committed murder, she would have been tried as an adult regardless. Her defense team will ask the judge to sentence her as a juvenile, which I think people are worried about, because they are concerned she will get less than 20yrs. I also think people believe 20 years is not enough for murdering your "best friend" and then lying about it for months and covering it up. She will get out of jail in her mid thirties with most of her life still ahead of her, and I think people find that unfair.
While it would be nice for her to get more time, I don't know all the details of what happened. I have to believe the deal was made in an effort to charge the leader (SE) with 1st degree murder and secure a conviction that would not be attainable without Rachel's testimony. If the only way to ensure SE gets life is to give Shoaf a deal of 20 years, then that will have to be good enough (for now anyway, unless they can charge her with other things to add more time, lying to police, hindering an investigation etc).
:jail:
Federal kidnapping charges carry a possible life sentence (no death penalty if she were certified as an adult since she was a juvenile at the time of the crime); for some reason the maximum prison term for a non-ransom kidnapping in West Virginia is ten years).
So they throw the book at SE--maybe the WV prosecutor but more likely the feds (note that it was the U.S. Attorney who said that "charges are pending against a second juvenile" following Shoaf's May 1st plea appearance in state court) with Shoaf's help and get a state or federal 1st degree murder conviction (and/or a federal kidnapping conviction), along with the accompanying life sentence(s), and then....
The plea agreement ONLY covers the 2nd degree murder charge--any allegation of kidnapping is not mentioned and so is not an element/fact of the murder; Shoaf is pleading guilty to causing Skylar's death by stabbing her, and nothing more. If there were to be other crimes charged, as long as they are separate and distinct crimes that didn't rely on the same facts or elements to prove them as were relied upon for the initial conviction (or in this case, the offense charged in the plea agreement), then double jeopardy would not attach. I hope Shoaf's family didn't pay too much for those lawyers...she may well be getting a nasty surprise from my friends in the U.S. Attorney's office.
Of course, she could try to withdraw the plea and go to trial...but something tells me that she's already given a deposition regarding SE's involvement (and may have even testified to the grand jury), so the impact on SE would be minimal--she would likely still be convicted at trial. And
if Shoaf was able to withdraw the plea and the prosecution then needed more testimony or evidence in order to try her, once they have used Shoaf's information to convict SE, I imagine that SE would be
more than willing to give ol' Rachel a taste of her own medicine.
Isn't it nifty how that works?
Incidentally, it would be difficult for Shoaf to withdraw the plea once it has been accepted by the court; she would have to be able to prove that some issue of fairness or justice demanded the plea be voided...such as coercion or lack of full explanation by her counsel, along with some evidence that had those things not transpired she wouldn't have accepted the plea...and those are things that the court makes sure didn't occur every time they accept a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement. They have a whole little spiel where the defendant is questioned as to whether they entered the plea freely/voluntarily (i.e. without coercion), and with full knowledge of the consequences of that plea deal. Shoaf could say that her attorney's didn't tell her she could be charged with additional crimes later on...but they'll never admit to that (to do so would open the door to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, reversal of the conviction, and, most pertinently for the lawyers, possible disciplinary action by the bar), and the court wouldn't have accepted the plea had they not been satisfied from Rachel's own mouth that she hadn't been coerced and that she was fully aware of the consequences.
Sorry for the long post, folks.
), but we can't impress upon our children the hazards of doing that very thing. They need to SEE the damage before they GET damaged---sometimes that's the only thing they understand...
