Defense: Colo. slaying because of deception

[WillParkinson]

Source: Associated Press

Defense: Colo. slaying because of deception
By The Associated Press
04.17.2009 9:29am EDT

(Greeley, Colorado) A man accused of beating an 18-year-old transgendered woman to death with a fire extinguisher “snapped” after finding out the teen was biologically male, a defense lawyer argued Thursday as the murder trial began.

But a prosecutor contended Allen Andrade knew Angie Zapata’s secret for at least 36 hours before the slaying - and killed her not in a sudden rage but because he disliked gays and transgenders.

Andrade, 32, would face a mandatory life sentence if convicted of first-degree murder and between eight and 24 years in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. Other charges against him include bias-motivated crime, which carries three more years, and habitual offender, which could mean decades more in prison.

Andrade’s attorney, Bradley Martin, said the case is about Zapata’s deception and his client’s reaction to that deception.

“This girl that he had just spent the last day with, was in fact a man, and Allen snapped,” Martin declared in opening statements.

Prosecutor Brandi Nieto told jurors that Andrade and Zapata communicated nearly 700 times via text message, cell phone and computer between July 12 and July 16 as Zapata was apparently searching for a roommate. She said Andrade did not make a snap decision but rather decided to kill Zapata after the pair spent hours in Zapata’s tiny one-bedroom apartment.

Read more: http://www.365gay.com/news/defense-colo-slaying-because-of-deception/

---

I'm not even going to comment on this.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Too sick for words

This attorney is just as disgusting as his client.

[Baby Snooks]

5. Most of them are...

But what is really sick is the number of people on juries who buy this "guilty victim" crap. Even rape victims are still raped a second time in this country by criminal defense attorneys. People, particulary those on juries, need to think about that. Defense attorneys defending criminals. Innocent until proven guilty? How about innocent until indicted? Twelve jurors already decided that when they voted to indict. At that point it should be guilty until proven innocent.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Wow!

"Innocent until proven guilty? How about innocent until indicted? Twelve jurors already decided that when they voted to indict. At that point it should be guilty until proven innocent."

:wow:

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

Let me put this clearly: you are a fucking fascist.

[Solomon]

7. Thank-you. I get sick of the "how can the attorney represent

a person that did this" bullshit.

People need to understand that your rights are created and upheld by how we deal with the worst of us.

Of course that's much too heavy a concept for most people to grasp.

[Xipe Totec]

9. That's not the issue

The issue is the justification of murder based on being cheated in some way.


Would you think it justified to defend a Nazi by claiming that killing Jews is okay because, after all, they're inferior?

That's essentially the argument this alleged attorney is presenting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Everyone has a right to a defense

We don't have to like the defense, nor do we have to accept the justification. But they have a right to make their case. It's ugly, but it's better than all alternatives, including the previous poster's absolutely ludicrous and ignorant and fascist notion that a defendant at trial should be considered GUILTY if some grand jury has indicted that person. It's a shocking claim on this board.

[No Elephants]

14. The argument of this attorney is

Fool me once...

I get to murder you.

[Baby Snooks]

8. Just a victim tired of being told I am a guilty victim...

And also tired of a justice system that revictimizes the victims every day in this country. To ensure the rights of defendants are fully protected. What about the rights of their victims?

The standard is "judged by a jury of peers" and while that may be questionable in terms of grand juries, just the same, they listen to evidence rather than just rhetoric and indict on the basis of the evidence presented to them. If the evidence is faulty or there is prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant has the right to appeal it. Do you know that? Some do appeal. And some of the indictments are tossed out. Most aren't. The appellate courts look at the evidence. Nothing else. "Harmless error" may seem to be a travesty when a court upholds a verdict, or an indictment, when the evidence is overwhelming. But it also prevents guilty people from getting away with murder. And rape and robbery. And lots of other things.

So, yes, it should be innocent until indicted. In a way, it is. We just don't think of that way. Perhaps we should.

I bet you support the Innocence Project. Do you know that Barry Scheck was sitting there smiling when Johnny Cochran uttered those infamous words "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit?"

Barry Scheck can do penance with someone else. Every time I read something about the Innocence Project I think about those words and about Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. He can also rot in hell along with OJ Simpson.

So I take it you believe this man has the right to a "fair trial" and the criminal defense attorney has the right to murder the victim a second time in order to get his client acquitted - if so, get a mirror.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Yikes

You are fundamentally a totalitarian. You want to hand all power over to the state in order to ease your anguish at being in the world. Nobody said democracy was easy, or pretty. The test on whether you are fundamentally a fascist comes when you decide on a system for dealing with the worst elements of society. You fail that test. You're beliefs are fundamentally fascist. And it's no surprise how dictators and totalitarians come into power. They depend on the stupidity, cowardice, mental illness, and weakness of people like you. And they're more likely than not to get exactly what they want.

You scream about victimization, yet you are more than willing to authorize the most severe victimization there is: the transformation of society into a ward and slave of state power.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. You want to overthrow the entire legal system because you were victimized?

There are problems with the legal system, but the Travis Bickle approach won't fix them

Get help. Soon. All that anger inside you will destroy you.

[fishwax]

16. wow, it just gets worse

:wow:

[Fumesucker]

17. If our justice system is so lenient toward criminals.....

Then why is the incarceration rate in the USA the absolute highest on the planet?

Why does the US have about five percent of the world's population and fully twenty five percent of the world's prisoners?

Your statement about "guilty until proven innocent" reminds me a lot of Ed Meese's quip about "they wouldn't be suspects if they weren't guilty"..

[fishwax]

15. wow, that's a disturbing attitude

"Defense attorneys defending criminals. Innocent until proven guilty? How about innocent until indicted? Twelve jurors already decided that when they voted to indict. At that point it should be guilty until proven innocent."

:wow:

[BR_Parkway]

2. Apparently, the defendent went to traffic court with the victim - and the

victim was addressed by the previous male name and pronouns 3 days before the murder:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10483/the-bombshell-dropped-in-prosecutors-opening-statement-at-the-angie-zapata-hate-crime-murder-trial

In opening statements, the prosecution said they will present evidence that shows that Andrade knew that Angie was transgender long before he killed her.

Prosecuting attorneys said in the days leading up to the two meeting in person, they had exchanged nearly 700 communications.

After meeting, the two went to a traffic court hearing in Greeley in which Angie was identified in court by her previous male name and by male pronouns.

The defense team contends Andrade did not learn of Angie's transgender status until moments before he killed her.

What came out in court, per Deputy District Attorney Brandi Lynn Nieto, was this traffic court trip took place 36-hours before Allen Ray Andrade admittedly killed her.

[blackspade]

3. Douche bags!

Both the defendant and lawyer are douche bags.
It's so sad to hear about these types of events.
Transgender folks have enough problems without having some asshole kill them for being who they are.

[sarcasmo]

4. Convict and Execute. I am pro death penalty and I guess this will never allow me to be a liberal.

Having been visiting this board for about five years I realize the two issues I have that make me what I guess you would call a Moderate. I went to the gun range over Easter weekend and I believe this asshole should be executed for doing this to Angie Zapata. This country has no accountability. You kill someone you get three squares, health insurance and cable TV. The person you killed gets to go six feet under. Flame away.

[Fumesucker]

18. Our "justice" system makes mistakes all the time..

Even in capital murder cases.

Would you volunteer to be the innocent person wrongly executed so that you could atone for the sins of our justice system in order that we may then proceed with executing the guilty?

Sort of the way Jesus willingly allowed Himself to be executed in order to atone for our sins..

Because as long as humans perform executions, there *will* be mistaken executions of innocent people, to err is human..

[uppityperson]

12. Evidence is showing it wasn't a "crime of passion" but of planning. Even if had just found out

was transgendered, that in no way excuses murdering someone. "Crime of passion"? BS. If "they lied to me so I killed them" becomes an adequate defense, good grief, we'd all be dead