Whether some may be willing to dump another body into the hole of people unworthy of any real thought, I can’t say. There will always be folks whose view of others, though never themselves or those they care about, is so harsh and simplistic that they feel nothing. But the sentencing of Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, isn’t easily ignored.
Her crime was putting the hand of a 13 year old boy on her brasier-covered breast. Sexual offense involving children fall without my purview for a variety of reasons, and while some will think that this is a 13 year old boy’s fantasy, I’m unimpressed. That said, let’s not lose any sense of proportionality. As child molestation goes, this is as small, and harmless, as it gets. Not right, for sure, but not the rape of a five year old either.
For Taylor, it doesn’t matter. Nevada has determined, in a fit of one-size-fits-all legislating, that any lewd act with a person under 14 deserves life in prison. I can hear the demagoguery as lawmakers exhort their saving the children, with a hand out for campaign contributions. In the minds of voters, they picture the psycho brutally raping the beautiful, innocent little girl, and the only question asked is why not the death penalty.
Here is the other side of the picture, via Mike at Crime & Federalism :
There’s much to consider in this video. The prosecutor’s effort to take no moral responsibility for the decision to prosecute Taylor for a crime that carried a life sentence. The decision not to offer an appropriate plea bargain, thus sealing her fate upon conviction.
The defense lawyer’s heartfelt effort to argue against a law that permitted no flexibility, to the point of breaking down when there was no place left to go. A question persists why her arguments as to constitutionality, of both the law and sentence, weren’t presented before and after trial in writing, whether to present the argument and law in the most meaningful fashion, or to preserve the issue for appeal.
And then there’s the judge, whose casual demeanor toward his duty was painful to watch. When he allowed defense counsel to pursue her constitutional argument over the prosecutor’s objection, the outcome became clear. But his imposition of a life sentence for what, at best, can be describes as a trivial offense, without any indication that he was disturbed at being a grocery clerk for the politicians, was very troubling. It was so routine, so inconsequential, but for the fact that Taylor was sentenced to life in prison.
We talk of ordinary injustice with much regularity, but are often unable to provide a clear picture into how this happens in courtrooms every day. The sentence of Michelle Lyn Taylor is as ordinary as it comes. And just as wrong.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow! Inflexible laws and inflexible prosecutors make a scary combination. And in Nevada of all places – the land of underage debauchery!
That was a really thought-provoking post, Scott. The video was difficult to watch from every angle, and I agree that you could write a book about all the different issues. I am curious about the prosecutor’s comments to kolotv.com (local news), though, since they seem to directly contradict defense counsel’s claim that no offer was made:
“[Elko County District Attorney Gary] Woodbury says Taylor did not want to negotiate a plea deal because she did not want to have to register as a sex offender. Woodbury says Taylor felt her life would be over if she had to register (as a sex offender) so it wouldn’t matter what she was convicted of.”
So your plea offer is apparently register as a sex offender…or get life (10 years) in prison? I’ve had clients who fear registration over all else, so I don’t have a hard time believing the defendant’s apparent position. However, it seems to me that prosecutorial discretion does not cease once plea negotiations have broken down. I don’t buy that his hands were tied by the legislature, even if he was sticking to a (ridiculous) registration requirement. Take her to trial on a LIO that includes registration but not life imprisonment, for crying out loud. (P.S. – the video’s also a good reminder of why we have formality in our courts. Good lord, if you’re going to put someone in jail for life, at least put on a jacket first.)
Finally, I know that you’ve already mentioned this, but once you know that your client is going to trial on this nutty charge, why wait until sentencing to raise constitutional claims? Did she ask the judge to instruct the jury on the mandatory minimum, and/or request that they consider LIO’s? As a more junior member of the criminal defense bar, I’m not going to pretend that I have all the answers. I will hold on to the desperation in this lawyer’s voice, though, as a reminder that preparation is key.
If defense counsel’s representation at sentence was false, the time for the prosecution to have its say was then, in court and in front of defense counsel, not in a post sentence interview.
True enough. It’s like watching a slow motion train-wreck of the system.
Hats off to the public defender – for not only doing her job, but being a true advocate for her client i.e. actually caring about them
Clearly she cares. But doing her job? Not entirely clear.
You know what a PD-apologist I am. Yet I thought she might have been a little bit more prepared.
Yee gads. This is where a gifted defense lawyer is need. I’m convinced there is a sleazy BackStory we don’t know about those who charged and prosecuted this case. [Always willing to search for the Sleazy BackStory and share it with purient jurors.]
While there may be a reason why she was unable to attack the statute/sentence in writing in advance, it’s similarly possible that she just didn’t have the time. I dunno.
But I’m not a PD apologist, and if PDs and former PDs believe what they tell me, their overburdened status isn’t an excuse for less than zealous representation. Or, you can’t have it both ways.
Wow, they are pretty laid back in Nevada. The prosecutor was sitting down while speaking, without a jacket on? And was that sunglasses on his head?
While I think the defense attorney was very passionate, I don’t think she presented a good argument. Or any argument really aside from a vague “this is unconstitutional” plea. Could she not put something together beforehand? Even if just a couple pages citing some supportive cases? At least that gives the judge time to reflect on the issue, and potentially something to hang his hat on if he would have happened to be sympathetic to the situation. But my sense of most trial judges is that they aren’t going to deviate from set rules unless they have some precedent to base it on, or at the very least a convincing argument supported by cited case law.
Come on! This Public Defender did a pretty bad job. She was obviously unprepared, with very little understanding of the relevant constitutional issues. This performance would have been poor in even an undergrad-level mock trial competition.
Still, the worst part is the judge’s complacency, with not even a comment about the harshness of the sentence.
Jesus must be coming soon. He said that when He comes again that things would be so bad that if He didn’t come, everyone on earth would be dead.
For this woman to be sentenced to life in prison for this small crime, we must be close to things getting as bad as Jesus said they would.
Recently, in some Eastern state, a man was given probation and treatment for rape (sexual intercourse) with a child. Talk about equal justice!
I got an e-mail (I assume from the moderator)that I could either reply to my own message or cancel it. I was given no reason for this. Obviously, my statement that the 2 court cases mentioned was evidence that “things are getting as bad as they can get was hyperbole.
The only other thing that I could imagine someone taking umbrage with, was my mentioning of the name of Jesus.If that is the case, then I stand offended at someones bigotry.
It’s not clear what sort of email you received, but since there’s no one who could be called moderator around here other than me, and I didn’t send you anything. You might have received a confirmatory email that is sent automatically by the program, but it’s not clear why that would have happened. In any event, don’t worry about it.
Thank you very much. The email I got said it was automatic so it must be part of the program as you say. I apologize for assuming otherwise.
Hello, I am the original uploader of this video feed. The sentencing was 18 minutes long, I had the edit the video for youtube’s ten min limit. Ms. Kilpatrick cited several cases where women were given lesser sentences for greater sex crimes. That was the extent of her argument. So, I am from this place of Elko and was myself in this very courtroom with a jury trial and I was falsely convicted, by jury, for a crime I did not commit. Now that I am out of prison, I spend my time publicizing this courtroom and it’s crazy sentencing/convictions. Thanks you all for your feedback on this case again. Thanks.
Thanks for getting this video up on Youtube. Keep up the good work.
Dear Sir, thank you so much for uploading the video feed and please accept my sincere sorrow about you being convicted and sent to prison for a crime you didn’t commit. It is one of my major fears that I would be arrested and convicted of a crime I was not guilty of and sent to prison. I imagine the situation was horrifying for you.
I deliberated on 3 juries and was shocked at what I experienced. They were all civil lawsuits but 1/2 of the people on each jury had no conception of what they were supposed to do and those 1/2 of the people were not capable of rational, reasoned thinking. I think we came to a just decision on the 3rd case but it was very difficult and I had to be very firm about being a voice of reason. There is extreme pressure in the jury room to give in to the majority.
I pray that God uses the terrible experience you had for good, not only for others but for yourself as well. God bless you.