FindLaw | Legal News & Information
| Law and Order NBC Wednesday 10 pm/9 central | |||||||||
Reviewed by Frank Barrepski February 14, 2001 Law and Order's victim this week is a gay man who was parenting a baby that had been given up by a mother who had a drug habit. Bradford Mandel was found beaten to death in a courtyard outside his apartment, along with the baby stroller and bottle, but the baby was missing. The detectives focus on the baby's birth mother, Celia Goddard, after a social worker informs them that Celia had inquired about rescinding the adoption when she completed her rehab program. They also learn that Celia had consulted an adoption attorney. When Abbie meets with the attorney, he correctly agrees that the ongoing nature of the kidnapping obviates his client's confidentiality rights, so he informs Abbie that the baby's father had not signed off on the adoption. As a result, the father is the only party who can legally challenge the adoption. Under questioning, Celia tells Jack that Robert Kelley was at first indifferent to the news that he had a son, until she mentioned that he had been adopted by a gay couple. According to Celia, Robert then went to speak to the victim rather than going to her attorney's office to file the necessary paperwork to challenge the adoption. Robert attacked Brad, kicking and punching him, all the while calling him "faggot." The detectives arrest Robert and return the baby to his other adopted father. Jack offers Robert a plea on a count of murder in the second degree without a hate crime enhancement under the hate crime statute, stating that he intends to seek such an enhancement on a charge of manslaughter in the first degree, if they cannot agree on a plea. Robert rejects the plea and elects to stand trial.
Taking the stand in his defense, Robert claims he approached Brad because Celia said that going to her attorney wouldn't be of any benefit. He dismisses the subway incident as "four drunk guys" and denies that his motive for attacking Brad was his sexual orientation. McCoy strengthens the prosecution's case when he points out that Robert didn't walk away once he had possession of the child. At the close of the defense case, McCoy calls the victim's gay partner as a rebuttal witness, arguing that the defendant called into question the fitness of homosexuals to be parents. There are several problems with this. First, the fitness issue is irrelevant to whether the defendant is guilty of manslaughter. Secondly, this testimony should have been presented in Jack's case in chief, if it was to be presented at all; the witness merely testified what life was like with the child. Finally, if fitness were the true issue, then the best way to address the matter would be through the use of an expert witness. The purpose seemed more calculated to affect the jurors' feelings about the victim than to present persuasive, relevant evidence. After deliberations, the jury finds Robert guilty of manslaughter in the first degree with the special circumstance of a hate crime. Now Robert will have to wait a few years to challenge the adoption.
|
|||||||||
|
Frank Barrepski is an attorney licensed in Massachusetts. Along with other practice areas, he handles criminal defense matters and appeals in his practice. |
