THE MURDER CASE THAT BECAME A MANSLAUGHTER CASE

All criminal cases require an intent to commit the crime the Defendant is charged with. This requirement -- the so-called "mens rea" component of every criminal case -- is a cornerstone of all criminal jurisprudence. Thus, in most cases, it prevents the accidental or merely negligent act from being treated as a criminal prosecution. Thus, a citizen who carries a gun which is accidentally discharged is treated differently from a murderer-for-hire, to give one simplistic example. Similarly, a Defendant who believes that physical force is necessary to protect himself may raise the defense of justification. Again, state-of-mind is a determining factor in deciding guilt. 

John Smith (name changed to protect confidentiality) was a Hartford resident who was enjoying some time in a city park when he was attacked by a youth gang. John customarily carried a hand-gun which he fired in self-defense, resulting in the death of one of his attackers. 

At his trial on charges of murder he admitted the shooting but testified that he did not, intend to kill his attacker. If he was guilty of anything, he argued, he was guilty of the greatly lesser offense of manslaughter where intent to murder was not an element of the offense. 

To prove the difficult issue of state-of-mind (a matter particularly difficult to show since there are no witnesses) the testimony of a City priest was introduced, who had known and mentored John Smith for many years. He told the jury that it was his belief that John was incapable of forming the intent to commit murder. 

At the conclusion of the case the jury deliberated for nearly two days before finding John Smith guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter but not guilty of the much greater offense of first degree murder. This favorable outcome was due in large part to the introduction and implementation of innovative expert testimony on the issue of intent by Spinella & Associates. 

(Click to Area of Practice -- CRIMINAL DEFENSE) 
 

 
INSANITY DEFENSE

At trial Mr. Becker raised the defense of mental disease or defect. Specifically, Attorney Spinella argued that he suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder. 

Because this unique defense had never before been made in Connecticut, extraordinary effort was made to convince and educate the jury of the merits of this defense, such as the introduction of expert testimony from leading experts. 

Following a lengthy and intensely contested trial in which the State disputed every possible aspect of the Defendant's defense, Mr. Becker was acquitted of every charge and walked from the courtroom free to pursue a productive life with a family that supported him at every juncture. 

Spinella & Associates pledge to represent each and every criminal defendant who has retained them in the same zealous manner in which Tony Becker was represented. 

(Click to Area of Practice -- CRIMINAL DEFENSE) 

MAKING PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WORK FOR YOU:
THE DWI/MANSLAUGHTER CASE

In every criminal case the prosecutor has an absolute duty to play fair. Most importantly, this includes a duty to turn over to defense counsel any and all evidence which could show that the Defendant is innocent -- so-called "exculpatory evidence". 

After meeting with friends, Patrick Murphy (name changed to preserve confidentiality), was an officer in the National Guard, was driving home at night along a rural road. The night was foggy and the road poorly lit. Suddenly, without warning, a deer jumped into his headlights, causing him to swerve slightly into the path of an oncoming car, which was itself on or slightly over the centerline as argued by the defense. The ensuing collision resulted in the death of the driver of the oncoming car. 

Patrick Murphy was transported to a hospital where a blood exam revealed the presence of alcohol in his blood. Patrick Murphy was charged with manslaughter and other serious charges and the prosecution insisted on a jail term of many years. 

At the subsequent trial of the case, Attorney Spinella raised a number of defenses, including an expert opinion from a leading toxicologist who concluded that the hospital report was insufficient to establish an illegal blood/alcohol level at the time the accident occurred. 

Most significantly, Attorney Spinella requested that the Court impose sanctions and dismiss the case because of the failure of the prosecutor to disclose information in its possession which was exculpatory to Mr. Murphy. A hearing was ordered, and subpoenas were issued to the State and the investigating police officers. Substantial evidence was elicited by Attorney Spinella which buttressed his claim. 

At the conclusion of the hearing an agreement was reached which punished Patrick Murphy in a way consistent with the evidence and not as a scapegoat for a tragic, but unintended accident. After spending a short time in a jail designed for non-criminal defendants, he was released to live a productive life. 

(Click to Area of Practice -- CRIMINAL DEFENSE) 

Spinella & Associates. Making the law work for YOU.