On the Roeder conviction

The column by Jill Stanek (link) seems to me the best analysis I've seen in the popular press.

 

It seems to me that unless "unreasonable mistake re justification" in Kansas law refers only to mistakes of naked facts, as opposed to the mistaken judgment calls on issues of mixed law-and-fact that are usually involved in justifications, Roeder was treated wrongly in being denied that partial defense (which would have let the jury reduce the charge to manslaughter).

 

Indeed, even if only mistake as to naked facts would count for mitigation to manslaughter , the judge should have made that clear from the beginning, so that Roeder would not have been misled into confessing. So either way, Roeder did not get fair process.

This sort of treatment undermines respect for the courts and even the law itself.