Everyday Scientist (NotScience)

BART Cop Verdict: A little background on the California laws at play

July 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm | jordan | law, news, society

Yesterday, an LA jury found Johannes Mehserle  (white BART cop) guilty of involuntary manslaughter for killing Oscar Grant (black guy) at an Oakland BART station on New Year’s Day 2009. (Link to NYT article.) Some people are ticked that the jury didn’t reach a harsher verdict, and some are just wondering what “involuntary manslaughter” means anyway, so here’s a little background.

MURDER

California Penal Code § 187(a) defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being. . .with malice aforethought.” “Malice aforethought” is this legal term of art, which usually translates into premeditated and deliberated killing. Those terms are nuanced as well, but I won’t dwell.

Murder in California can be first or second degree. Again, I won’t dwell; suffice it to say that first degree is nastier and carries the risk of a heavier sentence as compared to murder in the second degree.

MANSLAUGHTER

Manslaughter is less harsh than murder. California Penal Code § 192 defines manslaughter as “the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.” (emphasis added.) The section further defines what counts as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. It’s voluntary if the killing occurs “upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” It’s involuntary if “in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.”

CAUTION AS TO INTERPRETATION

We learn in law school that you never really know what these code sections mean until you learn how the courts interpret them. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

SOME POINTS ABOUT THE CONVICTION

Remember, you can’t convict if there’s a reasonable doubt as to any element of the crime. I’m guessing this is why murder was ruled out from the get go. (There’s a good chance I’m wrong about this, but I believe the jury were instructed on the charges of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, not murder. Not sure how to verify.)

Voluntary manslaughter is usually reserved for “crimes of passion.” The classic example is where hubby stumbles into his bedroom to find wifey in bed with his best friend, and without a moment’s reflection chucks a lamp at one of their heads and kills her/him.  So no premeditation and deliberation. But still intent. Hubby still had to desire or have reasonable knowledge that death of another would result from his actions.

Mehserle’s intent was ambiguous at best: no crime of passion. From the video footage (or so I hear) he seemed surprised, dismayed, confused (something like that) about shooting Grant. More dubious (because this came out days later) was that he mistook his gun for his taser. Whether that is worth reasonable doubt is a personal call.

Regardless of the other charges, involuntary manslaughter fits. In pulling a gun (instead of taser) and firing it into an apparently subdued Grant, Mehserle was void of “due caution and circumspection.” And it’s probable the jury would find that he was carrying out a lawful act (keeping the peace or whatever you’d call that) in an unlawful manner (diverging from proper protocol, to say the least).

CLOSING THOUGHTS

It’s not easy to convict a cop. This relatively lighter sentence will carry a very heavy message to policy officers and precincts across the state.