Comments on: Can a Person Be Guilty of Murder for Making a False Rape Accusation?

By: Lew

Lew — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:03:50 +0000

An earlier post: “Moreover, the selective prosecution of the wife instead of the husband strikes me as punishing her more for infidelity than murder. It’s indicative of a misogynist prosecutorial mindset.”

Approaching the situation with that prejudice is totally irrational.

Apparently the husband, in the eyes of the prosecutor, was defending his wife. The wife caused Mr. LaSalle’s death as certainly as if she had been driving drunk and killed him in a collision. What she did can easily be compared with yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

By: Misogyny is not a part of this case

Misogyny is not a part of this case — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:57:13 +0000

No, the prosecution wants to hold someone accountable and the wife is most morally responsible.

By: David

David — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:43:43 +0000

Her mens rea seems to be, at most, recklessness. Given the sheer improbability of the facts, I’d say prosecution here is a stretch.

Moreover, the selective prosecution of the wife instead of the husband strikes me as punishing her more for infidelity than murder. It’s indicative of a misogynist prosecutorial mindset.

By: Colin

Colin — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:55:21 +0000

A fun criminal law refresher. A couple of questions. Respecting the claim against Darrell, would his defense of others claim also fail if he didn’t try to cause his wife to retreat before using deadly force? I suppose it may have appeared from Darrell’s perspective that Tracy could not have retreated in complete safety at the time of the attack—especially if she was still in the truck with LaSalle. Respecting the question of whether Tracy’s cry of rape caused LaSalle’s death, I agree that the central inquiry is whether Darrell’s shooting was an unforeseeable intervening cause that broke the chain of causation. Perhaps Tracy didn’t know that Darrell owned or possessed a gun. Under those circumstances, the result may have been too remote or accidental. A question: since Tracy is being charged with involuntary manslaughter, will the prosecution have to prove that the result is not too remote or accidental from what Tracy consciously risked? Or is it enough that the prosecution proves that the result was not too remote or accidental from what Tracy should have been aware she was risking?

By: Michael Lee

Michael Lee — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:24:48 +0000

It’s hardly a basis for comment on your article but I once saw this same scenario on a television crime-drama. In that story, the wife was found not guilty because her motive was to disinform the husband not silence the only witness. She argued she could not know her husband would act beyond forgiveness and understanding. The facts presented offer no reason why this case might unfold differently.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:24:50 +0000

This is very similar to part of a hypo from my fall crim exam, except that was a daughter who was screaming as she ran from a paparazzi, and the dad (may have) thought it was a rape attempt.