Comments on: Cry Rape and Go To Prison!

By: Kim@Galavanting

Kim@Galavanting — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:21:45 +0000

I'm not at all religious, but you are correct that the bible says "an eye for an eye". However, that's the old testament. The new one, and in the words of the person you seem to believe is God, says "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

So it seems we all have to choose. Old Testament religious retribution, or democracy and the rule of law. I'll go with rule of law. A woman with a husband who runs out and shoots someone for *either* rape or an affair should also be convicted of a crime.

Just sayin'.

By: Joseph Condron

Joseph Condron — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:07:05 +0000

That is awful. A lot of people simply hate women and exhibit self-righteous sexism. I hope there will be an appeal.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:12:59 +0000

From a criminal standpoint, Mr. Roberson is in the clear. It was ruled that he was acting to defend his wife and therefore was justified in his actions FROM A CRIMINAL STANDPOINT. He may be liable for pulling the trigger in a civil trial, though. Whereas the State of Texas has no case against him, Mr. LaSalle's family may. However, these civil trials are privately funded, which can make it difficult for some families to afford prosecution. Remember, OJ was acquitted in his criminal trial, but was found guilty in a civil trial and was required to pay.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:35:04 +0000

It's terrible how women make false accusations. Not only are the causing so much hurt for the accused and their families, they are also making it difficult for other women who have genuinely been raped to get a conviction. I certainly think women who make false accusation should be put in prison!

By: Larry Armstrong

Larry Armstrong — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:41:28 +0000

I am glad…. Texas has so many laws against men, (parental fraud is legal) etc… I am glad she got what she deserve…. Men in America in general are treated like the women in Arab Countries, no rights…

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:38:44 +0000

Unfortunately, I did not see your comment until after I made mine–in which I asked what made Mr. Cuban believe that the husband had some advance knowledge of the affair. You've answered that one…My question to you, since you were at the trial is this: Was there anything (in your opinion) at the grand jury trial that allows for the possibility that Mr. Roberson could have mistakenly assumed rape, initially & only realized that it was consentual after the gun shot? If not, you may have proven my point about jury instructions, not giving jurors any good options.

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:38 +0000

Your link was bad…I believe this is the article you were refering to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_i... and here's the remainder of that paragraph you were quoting:

(Adams was, however, referring to Crown courts in which the judges were servants of the King and not to the independent judiciary of post-Revolutionary America.)

And here's a quote from the reference section of that wikipedia article:

"…the court can also attempt to prevent such an occurrence of juror nullification by (1) informing prospective jurors at the outset that jurors have no authority to disregard the law and (2) obtaining their assurance that they will not do so if chosen to serve on the jury." People v. Estrada, 141 Cal.App.4th 408 (July 14, 2006. No. C047785).

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:07:20 +0000

Many of us could state exactly where we believed he crossed the line legally, but the instruction sheet was very specific on what could & could not be considered & how. Also, something else I found out….At one point we were all deliberating on a specific sentence in witness testimony that we believed some of us may have misheard…and requested to have that portion of the transcript read to us. The judge denied are request on the basis that (according to the judge) it wasn't necessary for the judgement of guilt or innocence. Sometimes the jury's ability to decide their conscience is hampered by the jury instructions…they don't always have good options.

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:07:05 +0000

My second comment is based on what I learned, when I sat on a jury in an attempted rape case. The jury instructions can have so so so much bearing on how the jury views & decides a case. In the case I sat in on, which had gone to trial 2x with a hung jury, it's my opinion that the jury was hung due to how the jury instructions were written. We all agreed that the guy deserved to be charged & legally punished for his actions, but we could not agree to convict him of the actual charges levied against him according to the instructions we were given.

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:59:01 +0000

If you agree that the husband believed he was saving his wife from a violent crime, how can you still call what he did murder? How was he to judge whether or not the assailant was in the process of raping & killing or just raping in that split second time frame?

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:58:09 +0000

Okay, I gotta throw in my 2 cents here…. I've lived in TX for since 1982 and though I remember the headlines of this case; in all honesty, I can't ever remember any coverage stating whether or not there was any evidence or testimony that suggested that the husband may have had prior knowledge or suspicion of the affair. So, Mr. Cuban, if you could post any news articles, video or information that would tell me why your "gut" thinks he must have known, it would help me to make a better informed decision on whether or not I agree with your assessment.

By: Navy Guy

Navy Guy — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:12:04 +0000

How the system works today, I think Pentad is right. Crazy thing is i think a coin flip will give better predictions of right and wrong then how the jury sysem works today. atleast you have a chance 50/50 either way.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:25:47 +0000

agreed. all is right in the world with this outcome. the Wife should have been sentenced to more than 5 years though.

By: Huma

Huma — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:56:27 +0000

It would be up to the jury as fact-finders to figure out if they believed that the husband killed the lover because he legitimately thought his wife was being raped or because he suspected an affair (ie, didn't believe her lie) and wanted to take care of business.

The law allows for certain mistakes of fact when it comes to self-defense. You're allowed to use deadly force against someone if they use deadly force against you, even if they just break into your home, the whole 'a man's home is his domain/castle' idea. You're allowed to use deadly force if you reasonably believe someone is using deadly force against your family, being your wife and kids and parents, etc.

That's all first year torts in law school.

Rape, because it is seen as an invasion of the body, counts as one of those crimes where the use of deadly force is reasoned to be appropriate.

The law even allows for something called "imperfect justification," which would apply in this case. Basically, it allows for a mistake of fact defense if the first party, the husband here, REASONABLY believed that someone was using deadly force against his wife (and again, rape counts as one of the qualifying elements for use of deadly force against an attacker). He reasonably believed that his wife was being raped, per the fact-finders, aka the jury, and so he acted with deadly force. It's permissible under law.

It's also elementary CrimLaw back in law school.

Yeah, it seems shocking to the conscience that the man that actually pulled the bullet got off scot free. He should be charged with something, but that's where the mistake of fact defense comes in. He gets off. World keeps on spinning, according to the common law (or MPC, ha ha) in this country.