A man who shot his drinking buddy to death was too drunk to mean it, a Lexington jury concluded. The attorney who swayed the jury, colorful Kentucky politican Gatewood Galbraith, spoke exclusively to WLKY.com after the verdict.
"I thought it was a fair verdict. It’s certainly in accordance with the law, as the jury was instructed," Galbraith said. "There’s no evidence that there was murder. There was all kinds of evidence that it was exactly what they found him guilty of: second-degree manslaughter. It was a tragedy. But it was dealt with, I thought, at the proper level. I thought the father of the deceased was a class act, a class gentleman.”
See link - http://www.wlky.com/news/14012079/detail.html
Question - What are your thoughts ?
2007-09-05 09:33:17 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
After reading the WHOLE story and finding out that the jury had the choice of a more severe charge and THEY made the decision to find him guilty of the lesser, I'd have to say, that this case was handled according to the law and as per the wishes of the JURY.
2007-09-05 09:48:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the verdict and the explanation by Galbraith.
2007-09-06 00:14:18 · answer #2 · answered by BOOM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Being drunk can never be an excuse.
In Scottish law they have a legal concept called (I forget the precise term) Wanton Disregard (or something) in which if you got so drunk that you failed to understand the magnitude of shooting your best mate, than you are being criminally reckless and are guilty.
2007-09-05 16:43:36 · answer #3 · answered by The Jade Merchant 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
KY is a different world and Gatewood is a different kind of politician. At least the guy was convicted of manslaughter.
2007-09-05 16:40:38 · answer #4 · answered by here to help 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For a first degree murder conviction the states has to prove premeditation; they obviously did not in this case. I could see how being "too drunk" could impair someone from premeditating murder.
2007-09-05 16:40:15 · answer #5 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's ridiculous. He chose to drink. I think people need to be held accountable for their actions. If you chose to get sloppy drunk then you should have to suffer the consequences. No mercy. Do you think that would improve matters? Is that too harsh? Are there exceptions?
2007-09-05 16:41:46 · answer #6 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the verdict.
2007-09-05 16:45:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2nd degree manslaughter is a serious conviction.
lesson here is - be careful who you get drunk with.
2007-09-05 18:06:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
so, learn a lesson from it, get drunk first before you off your wife.
2007-09-05 16:41:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well it certainly does not mean it was pre meditated?
2007-09-05 16:41:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋