« Gratuitous Puppy Picture | Main | Thought Vomit »

"I'd Do It Again!"

 And the award for most disingenuous legal argument of the year goes to... Deborah Poole.  This Atlanta attorney is making the ridiculous argument that her 79 year old client is being deprived of her constitutional right to a fair trial.  Why?  Because the jury is too young to be a jury of her peers. 

This is a good time to dispel the myth that you are constitutionally guaranteed a jury "of your peers."   In truth, the sixth amendment states only that you are entitled to "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. "  The word "peer" does not appear in the Constitution at all.

But the absurdity of the legal argument pales in comparison to the absurdity of the facts:

Driskell is accused of fatally shooting Herman Winslow [her 85 year old boyfriend] as he read the newspaper at the senior citizens home where the two lived.   After dating for a year, police said Driskell became angry when Winslow broke off their relationship and started seeing another woman.

Police say she was wearing a hairnet, stockings, a bathrobe and slippers, when she confronted Winslow at his apartment in Hightower Manor, where she was also a resident.   After Winslow complained, a security guard tried to calm down Driskell, but when he turned around, Driskell drew an antique handgun she had hidden behind her back, put the gun to Winslow's head and fired up to four times, Atlanta Detective D.B. Mathis said.

"I did it and I'd do it again!"  Driskell was quoted as yelling to the officers who found her waving the gun and holding her finger on the trigger when they arrived.

This reinforces my longstanding belief that the elderly should not be armed.

Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 by Registered CommenterRCR | Comments24 Comments

Reader Comments (24)

Imagine how awful a jury of seniors would be anyway--none of them would hear the arguments, and deliberations would take so ungodly long that they'd go through at least three alternates to make up for the panel members who died.
Jun 21, 2006 at 07:29AM | Unregistered CommenterJordanBaker
I think it's hilarious that you can still be a woman scorned in your 70s. Awesome. So much to look forward to. . .
Jun 21, 2006 at 07:38AM | Unregistered CommenterMegarita
according to the gospel of Simon and Garfunkel:

Now I sit by my window and I watch the cars roll by
I fear I'll do some damage one fine day
But I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers
Still crazy after all these years
Jun 21, 2006 at 08:15AM | Unregistered Commenteretcetera
this all happened because they just came back from Daytona.
Jun 21, 2006 at 08:51AM | Unregistered Commentere
See, what does that lawyer know? I'm 50 years her junior and if they had me on the jury, I'd never convict her. He got what he deserved. I mean you're in your 80s, do you really need to be playing the field? :)
Jun 21, 2006 at 09:15AM | Unregistered CommenterCarrie
i think it would be hard to make up a whole jury of people her age. their chronic health problems and hearing issues usually get them out of jury duty (at least it worked for my grandparents). you would be hard pressed to find 12 80-year-olds who are healthy enough to sit on a trial. on the other hand, since women live longer than men, the jury might be all 80-year-old women, who would perhaps be more sympathetic to the defendent.
Jun 21, 2006 at 09:24AM | Unregistered CommenterEtta
"I need a jury of my peers, so until you can find 12 other octogenarian murderers, then this whole SYSTEM is out of order."
Jun 21, 2006 at 09:27AM | Unregistered CommenterAUA
Wonderful. I had just gotten over the notion that any person over 60 no longer had intimate carnal knowledge of another. ALl my illusions... shattered.
Jun 21, 2006 at 09:47AM | Unregistered CommenterClaire
I thought that all of this dating nonsense stopped at some point! Oh well.
Jun 21, 2006 at 10:35AM | Unregistered CommenterM.A.
Do you think the jury system works? The only time I was ever chosen to serve they dismissed me after I had kind of a meltdown during the trial. Embarrassing to remember, actually. If it was truly a functional system, do you think everyone would try their hardest to get out of it? Something is very flawed about it.

BTW, we elderly folks are against young people bearing weapons, too. It had to be said.
Jun 21, 2006 at 10:46AM | Unregistered CommenterReya Mellicker
The elderly should definitely not be armed. In fact, There are a LOT of "rights" that should be revoked when you hit 65.
Jun 21, 2006 at 10:52AM | Unregistered CommenterSmash
RCR -- How can you make a constructionalist argument with respect to the 6th amendment but a couple of sentences later entirely throw out the 2nd amendment? What if this story were about scissors instead of a gun? Do we ban the elderly from arts and crafts in their nursing home? She could have just as easily killed him with a pair of scissors, or a knife, or a hammer... you get the point... it isn't the gun's fault that she decided to kill... I'm baffled at how certain segements of our society fight so hard for amendments 1, 3-10 but some how forget about 2.
Jun 21, 2006 at 11:11AM | Unregistered Commenterthedocwat
Reya - yes I do, and I definitely wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of people who WANTED to be there. There's a reason why it's a duty of the people and not a paid position or a door prize.

thedoctwat - It's not a constructionist argument because it doesn't belie the legislative intent - the authors of the Constitution never intended that we be entitled to a jury of "people just like us." Did you click through the link? As to the 2nd Amendment comment, notwithstanding that my suggestion was a joke, all of our rights have limitations. For example, the right to vote is denied to convicted felons in some states, and slander is a legal limitation on free speech in all states. Yes, I will go on the record as saying crazy and/or senile people shouldn't have guns.
Jun 21, 2006 at 12:00PM | Registered CommenterRCR
Guns don't kill people.
Betty White kills people.
Jun 21, 2006 at 12:22PM | Unregistered CommenterAUA
Herman Winslow was a fuck-machine.
Jun 21, 2006 at 01:00PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil
I think seniors and young people have a lot in common...relationship drama.
Jun 21, 2006 at 03:22PM | Unregistered CommenterChase
I think what tipped her over the edge was his comment, "Honey, honey, there's plenty of Winslow to go around..."
Jun 21, 2006 at 03:26PM | Unregistered Commentercuff
Followed by his patented letdown:

"It's not you, it's me. After all, you Winslow, you Loseslow."
Jun 21, 2006 at 06:33PM | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous
LOL. 'you Winslow, you Loselow"...that's great.
Jun 22, 2006 at 09:33AM | Unregistered Commentere
And if you want to argue strict construction v. intent, do you really think that our founding fathers, when they say "the right to bear arms" meant every Betty White on the street should have a gat in her oversized purse?

Yes, I would argue we need amendments 1 and 3 - 10 and not 2. But I didn't write the damn thing so no one cares what I think. I certainly think the intent of #2 has been abused beyond belief. If we can have #2, I can't see why we can't have an amendment regarding personal privacy. I'll let the #2 thing go when we have that.
Jun 22, 2006 at 02:32PM | Unregistered CommenterCarrie
Page | 1 | 2 | Next 20 Comments | Most Recent Comment »

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>