Roeder subpoenaed Tiller's wife for 2009 records of procedures done at the clinic.

[madfloridian]

I never thought he would be allowed to plead voluntary manslaughter. But he is being allowed to do that.

I would never have thought he might get his hands on abortion records from Tiller's clinic. I wonder how this will turn out.

Will Women's Medical Records End Up In the Hands of George Tiller's Killer?

As jury selection in the trial of Scott Roeder for the murder of Dr. George Tiller ground to a temporary halt after a Kansas judge decided that a jury might consider a charge of "voluntary manslaughter," the doctor's widow went to court to try to quash a defense motion that would put the names of Tiller's patients in the hands of his killer.

Late last week, Roeder's defense served Jeanne Tiller with a subpoena demanding she produce "professional calendars, appointment books, records of scheduled procedures, or similar document," for all procedures scheduled at Tiller's Wichita clinic between May 1st and June 31, 2009.

This is truly unbelievable that this could go this far.

In Kansas, "voluntary manslaughter" is defined as an "unreasonable but
honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force" during an intentional killing.

Clearly, in demanding these documents, Roeder's defense wants to show that his client believed he
was saving the lives of perhaps dozens of unborn children when he
gunned the 67-year old doctor down in the foyer of the Reformation
Lutheran Church in Wichita.

In their motion, Mrs. Tiller's lawyers argue that those records are held not by Mrs.
Tiller personally, but in a medical trust administered by the law firm,
as required by Kansas state law, so that former patients might access
them should they be needed in the future.

Releasing these records would not only violate precedent, it would be a "failure to
provide adequate protections to the privacy of Dr. Tiller's patients,
who sought or obtained constitutionally protected medical services.
Disclosure of patient names alone, let alone other identifying
information to the public, and most certainly to an avowed
anti-abortion terrorist, would constitute the most egregious violation
of their rights of privacy imaginable".

It seems the assistant AG for Kansas is seeking to throw out the Roeder defense subpoena

WICHITA | A Kansas prosecutor who tried a case against a slain Kansas abortion provider is trying to throw out a subpoena by attorneys for the man who has confessed to killing the doctor.

Deputy Attorney General Barry Disney asked a judge Thursday to quash the subpoena filed by lawyers for Scott Roeder of Kansas City, Mo. Roeder is on trial in Wichita charged with first-degree murder for the May 31 killing of Dr. George Tiller.

Two months before his death, Tiller was acquitted of 19 misdemeanor counts of failing to obtain a second opinion from an independent physician before performing late-term abortions.

Disney said in court papers he has no personal knowledge of any facts relevant to Roeder's case. He also argued the subpoena seeks protected attorney work product.

The trial may be behind closed doors. But any judge that would allow the killer of a doctor providing services to women that are much needed to gain possession of the names of women who had appointments would be a terribly scary thing.

On Edit: It was implied this was not for real. Here is a link.

Tiller’s wife fights subpoena for abortion records

Tiller’s wife fights subpoena for abortion records

A lawyer for Jeanne Tiller, wife of a slain Wichita abortion doctor, filed a motion this afternoon to quash a subpoena for her late husband’s business records, sought by his accused killer, Scott Roeder.

Attorney Lee Thompson said in his motion that Roeder’s defense had requested “professional calendars, appointment books, records of scheduled procedures” from Tiller’s Women’s Health Services Clinic.

Roeder is charged with first-degree premeditated murder in Tiller’s shooting, May 31, inside the doctor’s church.

“The records sought contain personal, confidential and identifying information of women who sought constitutionally protected abortion services,” Thompson wrote in his brief.

Thompson also says the information is irrelevant to Roeder’s murder case.

I don't pull stuff out of the air, and neither does the blogger I quoted.

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[katandmoon]

2. Unfuckingbelievable!

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. +1000!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. There's truth in the question:

What is the matter with Kansas?

K&R

[Guilded Lilly]

4. Unholy.

Absolutely unholy.

This is a disgusting giant leap backwards...and another vicious assault to the dignity, hearts and bodies of every women in the country.

Beyond repulsive.
BEYOND REPULSIVE.
Cold blooded killer. A COLD BLOODED KILLER, being used in the court system to further rape women of their rights and Doctors following the LAW, their lives!

[Hekate]

5. Evil bastard

:argh:

[Union Yes]

6. Unconstitutional. How does this not violate privacy laws? knr for heads up nt

[Starry Messenger]

7. What century is this again?

Unbelievable.

[struggle4progress]

8. I doubt Roeder will get these documents. They might play a role in a necessity defense, but

the judge ruled out a necessity defense last month

A "voluntary manslaughter" defense must be based on his "honest" beliefs at the time that he was protecting someone against an immanent threat by gunning Tiller down in church, and it's really rather unclear how documents he hadn't seen then could have contributed to his beliefs

[madfloridian]

9. Rewording this post as well. Picky all of a sudden, folks.

A man that murdered another man in cold blood is perhaps being allowed to present a defense of voluntary manslaughter.

With that in mind it is not incomprehensible that a subpoena might not be stopped.

That is what I meant.

Geez......

[struggle4progress]

14. Judge being commendably cautious in Roeder trial (Kansas City Star)

By MIKE HENDRICKS
The Kansas City Star

... some mistakenly think Wilbert has already decided to instruct jurors to consider a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter when it’s time for deliberations. He hasn’t.

Nor is he promising that he’ll allow Roeder’s attorneys to present evidence in support of their client’s contention that he thought he had to kill Tiller to protect others.

All Wilbert has done is left open those options so Roeder can’t later assert in an appeal that he was denied a fair trial ...

http://www.kansascity.com/122/story/1680191.html

[struggle4progress]

15. Manslaughter Defense Remains Open Issue in Doctor’s Killing (NYT)

By JOE STUMPE and MONICA DAVEY
Published: January 12, 2010

WICHITA, Kan. — It remained uncertain on Tuesday whether an abortion opponent accused of murdering a nationally known abortion provider would be permitted to argue that the shooting fell short of first-degree murder because he was trying to save lives.

In a hearing here, Judge Warren Wilbert of Sedgwick County District Court refused a prosecution request to bar the defendant, Scott Roeder, from presenting evidence that might support a voluntary manslaughter conviction. But the judge did not promise to allow such evidence, stating instead that he would make such decisions on a “witness by witness” basis as the trial, set to begin on Wednesday, goes along ...

Mr. Roeder has admitted in court documents to shooting Dr. George R. Tiller, who performed abortions as late as the third trimester of pregnancy, as Dr. Tiller served as an usher at a Sunday service in his church last May ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/us/13roeder.html

[struggle4progress]

17. Attacking Roeder's manslaughter defense

... Here's the prosecution's argument:

"The Kansas cases that have allowed an imperfect self-defense argument involve situations where the perceived threat was capable of being carried out immediately and was likely to occur within minutes," Parker wrote.

"It has been the uncontroverted law in the State of Kansas since 1883 that no one can attack or kill another because he may fear injury at some point in the future," Parker added.

Since Tiller was serving as a church greeter when he was killed, they say, there wasn't an "immediate threat." The defense counters that Roeder fits the definition perfectly because he had an "unreasonable, but honest" belief that force was necessary ...

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/01/roeder-prosecutors-attack-voluntary-manslaughter-defense.html

[TicketyBoo]

19. If you do a little digging,

http://www.lifenews.com/state4719.html

Today, Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert refused a second time to block the request for the manslaughter defense.

He affirmed his ruling on Friday by saying that he can't rule on the prosecution's request to deny as admissible any evidence in the case until the defense decides on which evidence it will present.

Yet, according to an AP report, Wilbert warned the defense he was still not persuaded to allow the manslaughter defense, saying he would ''make every effort to try this case as a criminal first-degree murder trial.''

I sounds like the judge is not exactly inclined to allow a manslaughter defense, he just isn't going to rule it out prematurely.

During the Friday hearing on the manslaughter defense, the judge warned defense attorneys they faced ''a substantial uphill battle'' in showing Roeder had a sincere belief that the use of deadly force was necessary in the defense of others. ''This will not become a trial on the bigger issue of abortion. It will be limited to Mr. Roeder's beliefs,'' Wilbert said.

Judge Wilbert already issued an order denying Roeder's request to use a necessity defense…

[madfloridian]

20. It should not even be considered.

I notice all of a sudden Roeder's rights are being considered here because I posted about the subpoena. What's that all about?

[TicketyBoo]

23. The judge is avoiding

"reversible error" which could result in Roeder receiving a new trial. At least, that would be my guess about it.

Looks to me like the judge knows what he's doing.

[madfloridian]

25. Very good then. Hope Roeder gets what he needs....

so he won't get a new trial in the future. :eyes:

[TicketyBoo]

30. That's my hope, too.

Looks like the judge is thinking ahead so that won't happen.

[Mopar151]

53. Judge Wilbert

Is just makin' sure the noose is tied before the hangin'.

[struggle4progress]

35. My points are, first, regarding the prospects of the defense as a whole, and, second,

regarding the prospects of the subpoena

Regarding the overall "voluntary manslaughter" defense, here is the governing statute:

21-3403 .. Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being committed:
(a) Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or
(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto ...

21-3211 ... (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person ...

21-3212 ... (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another ...

21-3213 ... A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling is justified in the threat or use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof as a reasonable man would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.

See http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/index.do

The voluntary manslaughter defense requires sudden quarrel, heat of passion, or Roeder's honest belief that Tiller posed an imminent threat to Roeder or a third person or was attempting to illegally enter or attack Roeder's dwelling or occupied vehicle or was attempting to interfere illegally with Roeder's property. Now Roeder hunted out Tiller at church and shot him down while he was serving as an usher. Most possibilities here (such as sudden quarrel or heat of passion argument) are probably ruled out by the context and/or the obvious indications of premeditation. Moreover, the judge is unlikely to countenance highly bizarre strategies: for example, if the defense wanted to argue that Roeder honestly believed he was defending himself in his occupied vehicle from Tiller, the judge would probably allow such an argument only as part of an insanity defense, not as part of a voluntary manslaughter defense. And of course, although the approach sought by the defense, on ideological grounds, would be that Roeder was defending a third party, the judge has ruled this out; the defense is therefore likely to argue instead that Roeder killed Tiller in the honest belief that Tiller posed an imminent threat to a third party. The word "imminent" here most probably does not include "tomorrow" or "next week," but rather means something like "instant" or "immediate," and one should probably expect a careful discussion of "imminent" in the final instructions to the jury: there will be some real problems with I took my gun and went to the church, where I shot an usher (who I had been stalking) in an honest belief he posed an imminent threat to a third party. Roeder is entitled to a defense, but if this is his defense then he has a steep uphill fight

With regard to the second point, subpoenas will only issue if relevant, and the bar will be very high if the subpoena would intrude on the rights of otherwise uninvolved parties. The sphere of "imminent threat" may extend to the general environs of the crime scene, and may include a period enclosing the church service, but it is very unlikely to extend to Tiller's clinic and his practice there. The defense will, of course, attempt to enlarge the spheres of time and space for the "imminent threat," but I think the judge is unlikely to allow much enlargement

[jbnow]

32. If this can be voluntary manslaughter defense so could the Fort Hood

killing since he had reason to believe they would cause death to many people

and if these documents could be given to killer than the killer psychiatrist could demand records of all civilian deaths and all military personnel involved. Actually more of that is already public record.

Your point is so damn valid. He hadn't seen the documents. he had no way of knowing how many late term abortions he had done even if he spied on who he met... as a gynecologist he performed many services for women.

[struggle4progress]

36. Ft Hood is in Texas so the peculiarities of Kansas law may not apply

[azurnoir]

10. I think that HIPPA laws might come into play here n/t

[The Doctor.]

12. Oh... uh, yeah.

Missed this one.

[azurnoir]

37. ain' nothang

happens all the time;)

[The Doctor.]

11. Can you say "HIPPA"?

Although it would be hilarious to find the names of the several dozen anti-choicers on that list who went to Tiller, it's still a horrible violation.

[madfloridian]

18. I would certainly hope HIPAA would stop this. I am not trusting.

[The Doctor.]

33. Having personal dealings with HIPAA myself, I can tell you with certainty

The current bullshit falls under the statute.

If the judge is plug-fucking-stupid enough to allow it, he's looking at ten-thousand dollar fines and disbarment.

For those who've dealt with it, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is pretty fucking badass.

I've never fucked with it, and no one who does is very bright.

[azurnoir]

38. Actually he's looking at that fine per name mentioned

if I remember my HIPPA rules correctly

[The Doctor.]

44. There's a resonable risk of disclosure by giving those names out.

HIPAA is pretty tight.

[TicketyBoo]

13. Where did this originate?

This is a "reader diary" entry and I can't find anything by a news organization saying that Roeder's attorneys are demanding

"professional calendars, appointment books, records of scheduled procedures, or similar document," for all procedures scheduled at Tiller's Wichita clinic between May 1st and June 31, 2009.

That June 31 date is a dead giveaway that something is not right with that "diary" entry.

I can find links saying that Tiller's wife has been served a subpoena, all right, but she doesn't even have the records in her possession. Seems like a tempest in a teapot.

[madfloridian]

16. Here is just one link. I did not pull it out of the air.

http://blogs.kansas.com/courts/2010/01/11/tillers-wife-fights-subpoena-for-abortion-records/

[TicketyBoo]

21. Yeah,

That's the link I read that said that Tiller's wife doesn't even HAVE the records in her possession.

[madfloridian]

22. That is what I posted in the OP. Why do you want to argue?

[TicketyBoo]

26. No argument.

Just that it's impossible for a subpoena to work on someone who doesn't have the materials subpoenaed.

[madfloridian]

24. Now DUers are protective of Roeder's right to a manslaughter plea.

:shrug:

Is it just to argue? Is it personal?

Is it now no longer cold-blooded murder?

[TicketyBoo]

27. I don't see anybody saying

that they are in favor of protecting Roeder's right to a manslaughter plea.

This judge doesn't appear to be inclined to allow it, he's just not going to rule on it until he sees the evidence.

Sounds like a smart move to me. He doesn't want the guy whining about not getting a fair trial by disallowing the manslaughter defense out-of-hand.

[madfloridian]

28. You called it a tempest in a teapot.

Your words:

"That June 31 date is a dead giveaway that something is not right with that "diary" entry.

I can find links saying that Tiller's wife has been served a subpoena, all right, but she doesn't even have the records in her possession. Seems like a tempest in a teapot."

Your words are clear.

[TicketyBoo]

29. Yes, my words are clear.

Nowhere there am I advocating that Roeder should be allowed a manslaughter defense.

Nowhere.

A "tempest in a teapot" because the subpoena is no good, since Mrs. Tiller doesn't have the records.

In my opinion, the writer of the diary entry has ramped up the language in her diary entry to make this story seem more important than it really is.

[Binka]

34. Dear Mad

No need to debate with that one. 'Nuff said.

[madfloridian]

45. You are right, I think.

Just got kind of argumentative for a while....but it really doesn't pay to bother. :hi:

[JDPriestly]

31. In California, our state Constitution guarantees our right to privacy.

Therefore, a subpoena for records concerning the private information of third parties is not so likely to be enforced by our courts. Other states should make sure their Constitutions guarantee privacy.

[spanone]

39. soon it will be open season on doctors

[cbdo2007]

40. This is political - where is the link to Phil Klein??

He's been trying to get his hands on these names for years to "investigate underage sex and late term abortions" to see if crimes wer being committed.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/24/211154.shtml

Let's find the link from Roeder to Klein and implicate him in this also.

[madfloridian]

41. Just think. A man walks into a church and kills a doctor.

But the judge feels he MUST allow him to enter a plea of voluntary manslaughter or he might get a new trial on appeal.

Just think about that for a minute.

Not only that, this man who walks into a church and shoots a doctor in cold blood gets to try to get the records of those he treated.

Just think....many here now defend that.

[NJmaverick]

42. This has a striking similarity to the show trials of the South during the civil rights era

it's beginning to look like the federal government will need to step in with a civil rights trial to assure this murdering terrorist is brought to justice.

[NJmaverick]

43. This has a striking similarity to the show trials of the South during the civil rights era

it's beginning to look like the federal government will need to step in with a civil rights trial to assure this murdering terrorist is brought to justice.

[jonathon]

46. Wow

[femrap]

47. I fucking hate

patriarchy.

May his dick be attacked by whatever rascals live in Kansas. Prairie dogs, I guess.

[Gman]

48. It's Kansas. The only thing to be surprised about would be a murder conviction.

Read "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

[greenbriar]

49. Roeder and his ilk are scumbag pieces of shit. check out what they are up to now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7468938

[Mithreal]

51. Thank you, Mad

[jmowreader]

52. The only thing I'm worried about here is the possibility...

of a pro-life activist on Roeder's jury. Roeder's guilty as shit. We all know that. But a pro-life zealot whose blind hatred of George Tiller masks the truth--that Scott Roeder walked into a church with a gun and shot a man in the face with it, then confessed to doing it--could decide God told him to vote against conviction no matter how damning the evidence.

I really doubt he'll get the information he seeks; HIPAA and doctor-patient confidentiality would suggest otherwise.

[Piewhacket]

54. Manslaughter - Kansas Law - No way.

This judge is whacko. Goes too far in morphing a "mental illness" case, which is no defense.
No reasonable juror could accept this argument under the circumstances.

QUOTE:
To be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, Roeder must have believed his act to be "necessary to defend … a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force."

This means Roeder has to demonstrate not one, but four things. First, that there was a threat to a third person. Second, that the threat was imminent. Third, that imminent threat was the result of an unlawful act. And, fourth, that he honestly believed all of this. If Roeder fails to prove just one, his defense falls apart. Roeder will have to convince the jury that he believed the fetus counts as a "third party"; so far, no state has ever declared a fetus a person. Proving Tiller to have been an imminent threat also poses a challenge, given that he was shot at church, not at his abortion clinic. Even if Roeder could prove that he honestly believed the fetus to be a third party, and that Tiller was indeed an imminent threat, he would still have to convince the jury that he honestly believed Tiller was committing an "unlawful act." Such a belief, however, would have absolutely no basis: despite numerous attempts by former Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline, Tiller was never convicted of performing an "unlawful" abortion.
:UNQUOTE

http://www.newsweek.com/id/231113

[dembotoz]

55. against cap punishment but in his case a gas chamber is too good

drawn and quartered????

during the super bowl half time show

[Maru Kitteh]

56. Hung upside down until he pisses and shits on himself

Take him down and repeat, day after day after day after day after day. When you lock him up at night, every night, give him a gun with one bullet.

[Hansel]

57. Okay, I'm confused. How can records Roeder has never seen

nor has any reasonable knowledge of what they contain have caused him to justifiably kill a doctor in a cold blooded premeditated murder? Why would any judge allow this?

It's like he is trying to create an excuse for killing the doctor after the fact.

It's like:

Defendent: I killed him because of something he did.

Questioner: Well what was it?

Defendent: I don't know. Get me his records so I can find out.