She mentions the greater understanding we now have of the
self-defense argument of battered women.
But, to what extent does that apply to Hoyt? I know she had been beaten before and that
should be taken into account, but immediately before killing him she had been
trying to entice her husband to stay by wearing an negligee. Does that show that some motives other than self-defense
were at work?
I don't think that she was suggesting that Hoyt should have gotten off, but instead that she had little chance to a fair trial to begin with. Perhaps a jury that included some women would have been more likely to convict on manslaughter than murder, she did call for help.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that she was suggesting that Hoyt should have gotten off, but instead that she had little chance to a fair trial to begin with. Perhaps a jury that included some women would have been more likely to convict on manslaughter than murder, she did call for help.
ReplyDeleteI found this case to be very interesting and relevant in regards to the Zimmerman case in that it seems to be the direct opposite. Both people involved in the incident were men, yet the 6 member jury is all women. The defense obviously has agreed to this jury makeup. The case also rests on issues of self defense. If we follow the logic of The Hoyt argument, could Zimmerman, if convicted, appeal on the grounds that he was not judged by a jury of his peers, or that he had inadequate council that did not weigh the jury makeup heavily enough to object? Very prescient.
ReplyDeleteJ, I had the same thought cross my mind as I was reading that chapter. Additionally, as a jury of effectively white women in a case riddled with race, would that strengthen an appeal argument?
ReplyDelete