Killer Of Transgender Woman Gets 25 Years

[Carolyn Marie]

From today's Los Angeles Times.

New York man gets 25 years for transgender killing

Dwight DeLee was found guilty of manslaughter in the shooting death of Lateisha Green, who was born Moses Cannon.

Times Staff And Wire Reports

August 19, 2009

Syracuse, N.Y. - An upstate New York man has been sentenced to the maximum 25 years in prison for the hate-crime killing of a transgender woman.

Dwight DeLee was found guilty of manslaughter last month for shooting Lateisha Green because of anti-gay bias.

The 20-year-old construction laborer is only the second person in the nation to be convicted of a hate crime for killing a transgender victim. In April, a man was convicted of first-degree murder and a hate crime in the death of a transgender teen in Colorado.

Green, 22, was born and raised in Syracuse as Moses Cannon. At age 16, Green came out as transgender and began living as a girl.

She faced bullies and threats at school but had a supportive family, said Michael Silverman, director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, which has worked closely with Green's family.

In November, Green and her brother, Mark Cannon, drove to a small house party. When they arrived, several guests started yelling slurs about Green's sexuality, witnesses later testified.

Green was sitting with her brother in their car outside the house when DeLee walked up, raised a .22-caliber rifle and fired a single shot.

DeLee was acquitted of murder.

The manslaughter conviction means he intended to injure, not kill, his victim.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

[Guest Elizabeth K]

Why it wasn't murder I do not understand - but that is not a huge issue.. The huge issue is the 25 years! Hopefully it is a TRUE 25 years and this murderer is not out on the streets in seven, hunting you or me down with a rifle, intending to 'injure' us.

{oooops, did I kill you ? Sorry! There goes another few years off my freedom! Hum - at my age... thinking math...carry the one... I can take out about six of you people!}

Lizzy

[Guest Nigh]

The manslaughter conviction means he intended to injure, not kill, his victim.

Does it really matter if his intent wasn't to kill? The girls dead and nothings going to bring her back. How this isn't first degree murder is beyond me- he raised a gun and pulled the trigger- what did he bloody well expect? The purpose of the gun is to kill, not maim or injure.

{oooops, did I kill you ? Sorry! There goes another few years off my freedom! Hum - at my age... thinking math...carry the one... I can take out about six of you people!}

in a very terrible sort of way.

[Guest Valentine]

The shooters intent is important, but in this case I think that his intent went beyond an attempt to injure.

Let's hope that he serves all of his sentence.

[Guest Rain]

I the only thing I can come up, is somehow his lawyer turned into man slaughter because the shooter was using such a small caliber weapon. I am not saying a .22 could not kill someone, because it can. He did only fire one shot, so I'm sure his lawyer got the jury to buy into that some how. I think it is pretty messed up, he should be doing harder time. How much time do people tend to due for first degree murder?

[Guest NatalieRene]

Even if it wasn't his intent to kill the person shooting the person and "accidentally" killing the person should not be a excuse. It was a hate crime that resulted in a death. He should be on death row waiting for his turn to ride the lighting not getting out in 25 years or earlier for good behavior so he can just maim the next victim.

[Guest Jean Davis]

25 years IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

Jean

[TassieTiff]

In Australia we don't have the option of Capital Punishment... we haven't used the gallows since 1966 ( Ronald Ryan was the last from memory in Victoria). If ever there was an Argument for the implementation of the full consequences of the law, a Hate crime is it. Regardless of his intentions, the result was Murder. The number of shots fired is irrelevant. I am prepared to bet there wasn't one Transsexual on the jury. Given that the crime was against a Transsexual wouldn't you think they would require at least one in the jury room during deliberation ?

An injustice is an injustice regardless of who was the victim.

If you point a gun at someone, Deliberately pull the trigger, it is murder.... NO Ifs, NO Buts

[Sally]

In reading this again, I have to wonder just how stupid or transphobic the jury had to be - think about it, if you are sitting in a car and someone walks up to you with a rifle to shoot you - what is the most visible area - YOUR HEAD!

I have often heard that shooting someone in the head will only injure them haven't you - baloney!

It was hiw intent to kill her and that is obvious and 25 years is barely a slap on the wrist most prisoners do about a third of their actual sentence because of early parole for good behavior (We need the room for someone else so get out and go do it again).

Forgive me for being so cynical but our Criminal Justice System is well named.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest ChloëC]

I agree with everyone that from what I've read, it was a hate crime, the man had every intention of doing great bodily harm which includes killing and should have been convicted of murder, but...I've also been called for jury duty six times and have sat on 5 trials (actually a 6th but the suspect pled at the last minute), including a murder trial and things just aren't that cut and dried.

From my experience (and following a lot of other trials), a defendent in a criminal trial is not particularly tried on the actual act, he/she is tried for violation of some kind of law (federal, state, etc.). The actual act is the outcome or result of the violation of the law and is part of the evidence used to present to the jury for conviction. The prosecution has to prove that the defendent violated the statute beyond a reasonable doubt which is different then proving the defendent actually committed the act.

Next, the prosecution is trying to get a conviction of some kind, any kind, and they'll often take whatever they can get. I would like to know all the possible alternatives the prosecution (or judge) offered the jury. From the article it sounds like the jury basically reported out - acquited of this, guilty of that, etc. I don't think that's really how it works. In the murder trial I was on, we were given four possible verdicts to consider. We first had to debate if the suspect was guilty of any of them, and then determine which one. We only reported out one, and would never had said he was 'acquited' of the others.

Next, there is the 'reasonable doubt', and that is where a lot of juries get awfully confused, and the prosecution, defense (intentionally!!!), and especially the judge don't make it any easier. There may have been 11 people in the jury room that wanted the 1st degree murder conviction, but one person holding out against that is enough. So the other eleven were forced to find a verdict that they all could support.

Finally, it would appear the judge was probably wanting the murder verdict, which is why he ordered the maximum sentance.

And I will tell you, um, interesting things happen in the jury room. And it's not 12 Angry Men.

I hope the family will also take this to civil court. Any additional penalties wouldn't be enough, but they would help.

Chloë

[Guest Sakura_Stingray]

Ok here is a question... with the new law about to be signed(or it has been signed) will the court system review past hate crime accused cases? and if not is there a way to reopen a case by the victem/parents of the victem to appeal a previous decision in the grounds of prejudice jury or something so that the new law will be in effect for the new trial?

im not into law or anything but i think something similar happened in years past with hate crimes against the african american culture

[Carolyn Marie]

Ok here is a question... with the new law about to be signed(or it has been signed) will the court system review past hate crime accused cases? and if not is there a way to reopen a case by the victem/parents of the victem to appeal a previous decision in the grounds of prejudice jury or something so that the new law will be in effect for the new trial?

im not into law or anything but i think something similar happened in years past with hate crimes against the african american culture

I'm afraid not, Sakura. You have to be tried under the laws that were in effect at the time of the crime, unless the U.S. Attorney can try him under some

other statute. Anything is possible, but that seems unlikely.

Carolyn Marie

[TassieTiff]

Sakura,

You can't introduce a new law and make it retrospective ( for crimes committed in the past). The Director of Public Prosecution or in the US ( District Attorney ) can appeal the leniency of a sentence But from reading about this case it looks like a Plea Bargain. IE: Plead guilty to a lesser charge to guarantee a conviction.

Regards, Tiff.

[Guest Anna_Banana]

Oh I see. Obviously people use rifles to wound, not kill. It is so blatantly evident to me that this jerk was just "toying around," only intending to injure her. What idiot judge ruled this? I smell conservative bias. I had to do some research as to what a .22 caliber rifle is because I'm not in the know. While they are primarily used to hunt squirrels, rabbits, and foxes, the .22 is capable of taking down a coyote, assuming the range isn't too large. However, at point-blank range, any ballistic-firing weapon is fatal. The person walked up to the car, raised the gun, and fired. You don't wound, laugh, and run away at point-blank range. You kill. Maybe if it was a BB gun, you might have an argument. I don't think people realize how effective bullets can be.

Let's take a look at the cartridges the murderer was using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg

In comparison to the .45, the bullet-head of the .22's are rather small. But still, a projectile that size going through your head, face, neck, or any other major artery is very deadly, especially at point-blank range. This man should be facing life in prison for this crime, no less.

.Anna

[Guest Pammy]

...I am prepared to bet there wasn't one Transsexual on the jury. Given that the crime was against a Transsexual wouldn't you think they would require at least one in the jury room during deliberation ?

That would be prejudicing the jury. The only time I ever went to a trial, any of my "peers" were specifically excluded from the jury. This is legal and common. You wouldn't, as a defense attorney, want someone familiar enough with the facts and issues on the jury. You want people who are as ignorant as possible to reduce the likelihood of a conviction. Just imagine what would be said in that deliberation room if YOU were in there on that jury!

Love

Pam

[Carolyn Marie]

Pam, I have to agree with you, sadly.

Neither the prosecutors nor the defense counsel typically want intelligent, objective and

independent-minded jurors. What they want are sheep who can easily be swayed their way.

Somehow it manages to work out fairly well despite the courtroom shenanigans by both sides.

Although fictional, see the movie "The Verdict" to see the above in action. Great movie, BTW.

One thing you will rarely see is someone allowed as a juror who has an emotional tie to the case.

For example, in a medical malpractice case, someone who had also been a victim of that would not be

allowed by the defendant;s counsel to become a juror. I can understand that rationale. So in a case

involving a transperson as a victim, another transperson would never knowingly be allowed on the jury

by the defense counsel.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Amy937]

If you shoot someone, it is meant to kill

[Guest Ryles_D]

It's good that it's seen as a hate crime.... but this is still awful. I'm glad we are making progress- I just wish we were making more.

[Sakura]

http://www.ohmidog.com/2009/09/28/man-gets...or-killing-dog/

glad to see we are finally getting the same respect as dogs who knows in another few years maybe endangered animals *shakes head *

Sakura

[Guest Ryles_D]

To be fair.... this guy had a history of violence and beat the poor thing to death with a hammer. We don't know about this guy's history and he only fired one shot- it doesn't sound like she died a particularly gruesome death, either.

[MaryEllen]

Dead is dead. No matter how you look at it.

[Guest Miss Aeryn]

To be fair.... this guy had a history of violence and beat the poor thing to death with a hammer. We don't know about this guy's history and he only fired one shot- it doesn't sound like she died a particularly gruesome death, either.

How is that even remotely relevant? Tell me one good way to die? Apart from in your sleep? And who cares if he's been a goody two-shoes his whole life?

One second she was a young woman with her whole life in front of her. The next, dead.

Ride the lightning.