The judge must be bracing themselves for one of the all-time Hail Mary explanations from the accused’s defence team to justify this plea.
Seriously, I get it, legal gamesmanship, buying time to think something up, but if I were a judge who finds out that the defence came up with nothing, I’d be taking them to task pretty severely for wasting my time.
setting up a plead bargaining deal to get the possibility of the death penalty dropped?
Of course he plead “not guilty” to charges of hate crimes. After all, in whatever passes for his mind, he was doing the world a service in saving decent White people from the hordes of immigrants, of whom, the Jews were responsible for bringing in. Simple.
Much as it pains me to imagine the place still open I’m none-the-less inclined to think the right message would be a life sentence to Gitmo for this monster and others like him.
That could change and I rather hope it does for my own peace of mind but, at the moment, the impulse to vengeance is really strong
INAL, but as was explained to me by my lawyer friends (both who teach at prominent law schools) it would be malpractice if a defense attorney allowed his client to plead guilty at arraignment. The burden of proof is on the state for a good reason: it’s a massive machine that grinds up both the innocent and the guilty. The defense exists to protect the defendant from being more fodder. There’s no reason for anyone to not force the state to meet that burden, particularly since the odds are ALWAYS against the defense from the get-go.
“‘Yes!’ Bowers said in a loud voice when asked if he understood the charges.”
He then shouted, “What are all these people doing on my lawn? Get off my lawn!”
Nonetheless, Gitmo sounds good.
So he going to plead permanent insanity?
Plus there’s always the claim that life sentences are actually less costly for the government due to supposedly less trial crap.
Donald Trump’s response: “I have to tell you, Mr. Bowers was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”