Jared Remy Pleads Guilty to Murder

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
More details here:
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/05/27/jared-remy-agrees-plead-guilty-murder-jennifer-martel/BJwMvyXKqJnLCCrCiuVrmI/story.html
 
 
Remy did ask to clarify the court’s understanding of the events that led to Martel’s death. He claimed that Martel had a knife and was threatening their daughter prior to the attack.
Remy also pleaded guilty to assault and battery, violating a restraining order, and other charges, some of which stemmed from multiple violent altercations while he was being held in prison. Two charges, assault and battery as well as assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, were dismissed after Remy’s attorney argued they were covered under the murder charge.
 
 
I have to say I'm a bit surprised.  He plead guilty to the max sentence he could get in any event.  So there's nothing gained from the defense perspective, apart from sparing everyone the grief of a trial.  
 
During the plea, Remy brought up a potential defense/mitigator to the judge (Martel threatening child).  I've seen people try to tell the judge stuff in plea bargains, perhaps not fully understanding (or understanding and just punting) that the case is *done* regardless of what they say.  Plea colloquies (comprehensive questioning by the judge) usually are done to forgo certain types of appeals.  For example, the judge often asks if your attorney has contacted all the witnesses on the case that the defendant and the attorney know about; this precludes an appeal that the attorney was ineffective in assessing the defense and gave poor advice to accept a plea bargain.  Some defendants have an idea that they can plea now, wait 7 years until memories fade (and/or) people die, then raise an issue on appeal, converting their horrible case into a much better one.  It does not really work that way.  
 
In any event, Remy was represented by an attorney.  So if the colloquy was good, this probably sticks.  
 
Which means there's a 99% chance that this is over and done with, bullshit buyer's-remorse appeals aside. 
 
***
Personally, I thought there would be a trial if Remy was in complete denial (this happens).  Otherwise I thought he'd raise some kind of defense and use that to get an actual plea bargain, as opposed to the max.  Prosecutors make what is sometimes called a "walk-on-the-beach" deal; you plea guilty and you're eligible for release when you're 85 years old, with criteria for release including good behavior, medication compliance, etc.  It's basically a slim chance that they get to leave prison and take a walk on the beach before they die.  The understanding is that guys who are that old are unlikely to reoffend, plus, they're unlikely to live that long in prison.   So basically you trade a few years of release for an old man in exchange for avoiding the trial and the emotional distress for the families. 
 
***
It sounds a little odd, but it looks like Remy did the right thing here, insofar as he chose a path that would offer the greatest amount of relief and least amount of pain to everyone closely associated with the case (the Martels, the Remys, the neighbor witnesses)
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,792
Suburbs of Washington, DC
It's difficult to believe Jared Remy chose this moment to act selflessly, especially when there's no history of that in his life up to this point, including the last few months in jail. Still, this is as good an outcome as could be expected for all parties.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I'm mildly surprised he's pleading guilty to M1. The very nature of domestic violence killings usually gives rise to facts that fit the lesser included offenses. You go to trial on M1 in a domestic situation and you've got a pretty good chance of the judge charging the jury with homicides down to manslaughter. So in that aspect I'm surprised.
 
If he's truly doing this to spare the families, I'm even more surprised. Hopefully the jailhouse lawyer bar hasn't got him thinking one of the few scenarios RR outlined is a probably path. I'm hoping this is what it seems. A crappy guy going away quietly.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
IpswichSox said:
It's difficult to believe Jared Remy chose this moment to act selflessly, especially when there's no history of that in his life up to this point, including the last few months in jail. Still, this is as good an outcome as could be expected for all parties.
 
Yeah, it does seem very odd.  I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. But it seems there is no other shoe. 
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
Well, he did claim that the murder victim was threatening to kill her own child with a knife, so "selfless" and "right" may be bridges just a bit too far.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
PaulinMyrBch said:
I'm mildly surprised he's pleading guilty to M1. The very nature of domestic violence killings usually gives rise to facts that fit the lesser included offenses. You go to trial on M1 in a domestic situation and you've got a pretty good chance of the judge charging the jury with homicides down to manslaughter. So in that aspect I'm surprised.
 
If he's truly doing this to spare the families, I'm even more surprised. Hopefully the jailhouse lawyer bar hasn't got him thinking one of the few scenarios RR outlined is a probably path. I'm hoping this is what it seems. A crappy guy going away quietly.
 
I agree.  I made a similar comment in the media forum.  I'm wondering why the DA wouldn't agree to second degree at least.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Even after getting off the juice, this is a guy who still threatened and assaulted a corrections officer. To be honest, I'd be surprised if he survives long enough in prison to make any of the discussion as to why he didn't work harder on a plea bargain more than academic.
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
Rovin Romine said:
It sounds a little odd, but it looks like Remy did the right thing here, insofar as he chose a path that would offer the greatest amount of relief and least amount of pain to everyone closely associated with the case (the Martels, the Remys, the neighbor witnesses)
 

Roviin,
One can't overlook the fact that Remy's attorney was paid for by Jerry, who had every interest in making this go away.  I know that far fewer attorneys willingly sell their client down the river than one sees in media portrayals.  However, they can influence, and highlight the benefits of a deal, while fulfilling their duties of disclosure by "fine print" disclaimers that it's Jared's choice.   Without calling the particular attorney into doubt without any evidence, have you seen such scenarios play out elsewhere?
 

fineyoungarm

tweets about his subwoofer!
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2011
9,187
New Orleans, LA
Reverend said:
Even after getting off the juice, this is a guy who still threatened and assaulted a corrections officer. To be honest, I'd be surprised if he survives long enough in prison to make any of the discussion as to why he didn't work harder on a plea bargain more than academic.
 
Probably you are right.  However, there is some chance he gets thrown into solitary/no contact with rest of prison population for his own protection. (Not that so doing will guarantee his safety.)
 
The guards may (note use of the word "may") take a hands off approach to avoid an investigation and adverse publicity, because word will get out, if they rough him up.
 
That's the same reason that the system would prefer he not be murdered by another murderer (bad publicity, the expense of an investigation). That preference though may not extend to keeping him alive in the long run.
 
So be it.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,913
Salem, NH
Myt1 said:
Well, he did claim that the murder victim was threatening to kill her own child with a knife, so "selfless" and "right" may be bridges just a bit too far.
 
Everything else I read said Martel "threatened him with his daughter" - and that she had a knife in her hand.
 
It seems more like she threatened to take the daughter and leave him, possibly while holding a knife because she felt she may need to defend herself. Her threats pushed him over the edge, and he killed her.
 

fineyoungarm

tweets about his subwoofer!
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2011
9,187
New Orleans, LA
Thinking this through, I would not be surprised if the plea is in exhange for incarceration in an isolation ward.
 
Oh sure, maybe it was to spare the kids somehow (good luck with that working out OK), but such an offer from the DA would be of no surprise.  Essentially, Jared, if you go for 2nd degree via a roid rage defense and lose, you are definately a dead man - general population and all that. Plead to first, and you just might live and grow old. Alone.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Steve Dillard said:
 
Roviin,
One can't overlook the fact that Remy's attorney was paid for by Jerry, who had every interest in making this go away.  I know that far fewer attorneys willingly sell their client down the river than one sees in media portrayals.  However, they can influence, and highlight the benefits of a deal, while fulfilling their duties of disclosure by "fine print" disclaimers that it's Jared's choice.   Without calling the particular attorney into doubt without any evidence, have you seen such scenarios play out elsewhere?
 
This is a very complex issue. What you're suggesting is certainly possible, but it's unlikely for a number of reasons.    Further, plea advice is a gray area.   
 
As to it being unlikely that an attorney sells out a client; it's high risk, low gain behavior.  The client will eventually figure it out and you'll have to deal with bar complaints and being deposed for appeals and/or hearings.  Financially, there's little incentive.  Most defense attorneys are paid up front (which may induce them to skimp out on things that might draw out the case) or by the hour (which might induce them to give advice to pointlessly prolong things.)  Either way gives you a "bad" incentive, from a particular perspective of course.  But apart from that, if there's a true disagreement on a fundamental issue or a conflict in interests like the one you're suggesting, most private attorneys will simply withdraw, and keep their non-refundable retainer.  There are also procedural protections to deal with scenarios where the client and attorney disagree (this would be the lawyer-corecing-client scenario). The simplest being that a client can fire a private attorney and hire another, or ask for a court-appointed attorney.  
 
In terms of plea advice, there's always risk at trial.  There's always uncertainty.   So, laying out the pros and cons of a plea bargain is always something in the nature of throwing darts.  
 
In this case, there were multiple eye witnesses, an attempt to intervene, a history of behavior, DNA evidence, and, perhaps, inculpating statements.  So in one sense it's an open shut case for manslaughter.  Murder One or Murder Two require proving mental states and/or excessive behavior, so there's always a question as to what a jury might think or do.  While Remy might not have gotten a NG, he may have gotten a better result from trial rather than from accepting a plea bargain.  He could not have gotten a worse result from trial.  Which is what makes this kind of odd, and might have prompted your question.
 
Ultimately though, it's the client's choice.  I have told clients they were complete idiots for taking particular deals.  I have told clients they were complete idiots for going to trial.  The clients do what they want though.  As an attorney you can withdraw or 'hold your nose' and do the best you can for your clients given their choices.  I've had attorneys come up to me after a plea and ask what the hell the plea was about (I've asked this of other attorneys).  The assumption is that it's safe to do so because there's a) some hidden element or b) the client's made a bad choice.  
 
Fineyoungarm raises a good point as to a possible hidden element; I don't know how MA corrections works in that regards though. 
 

lambolt

http://b.globe.com/13BHr47
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 28, 2011
164
Maybe they could give him a cushier cell if his dad agrees to disappear from the booth, never to be seen or heard from again
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,963
Boston, MA
I see in the Martels statement that they were represented by Mintz Levin, one of the more connected law firms in the city of Boston. I wonder what, if any, influence that had on his pleading to murder 1? I don't really understand the criminal bar, so maybe none, but I thought it was interesting that they were represented by a big firm in some capacity.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,913
Salem, NH
Bleedred said:
I see in the Martels statement that they were represented by Mintz Levin, one of the more connected law firms in the city of Boston. I wonder what, if any, influence that had on his pleading to murder 1? I don't really understand the criminal bar, so maybe none, but I thought it was interesting that they were represented by a big firm in some capacity.
 
Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about law - but unless the Martels are going after the Remys in a civil suit, what legal representation would they need here? My assumption was that the DA's office serves as the prosecution in such cases. Would their representation basically just be working with the DA to add more muscle to the prosecution in an effort to make sure their daughter's killer doesn't walk?
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
I'm glad about the guilty plea, but annoyed by the "defense". She's dead, and you're the reason why. No need to explain why when she can't defend herself (nor could not when you took her life in cold blood).
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Hank Scorpio said:
 
Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about law - but unless the Martels are going after the Remys in a civil suit, what legal representation would they need here? My assumption was that the DA's office serves as the prosecution in such cases. Would their representation basically just be working with the DA to add more muscle to the prosecution in an effort to make sure their daughter's killer doesn't walk?
They needed counsel in the recently concluded custody dispute.

They may file a wrongful death suit against Jared to get access to whatever assets he now has, or may receive in the future.

It's also possible that they are mulling a suit against Jerry and his wife, but that seems less likely.

They may also be seeking support services for the child for the local school district (though I'd be surprised if Mintz has a robust practice in that area).
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
The Commonwealth has a victim fund with deadlines and paperwork for applications, too. I agree that the wrongful death claim against Jared and the custody issues are the more pressing legal need, though.

I wouldn't be shocked if Mintz were handling the matter pro bono. A number of the BigLaw firms in Boston have DV clinics or programs. I have no way of knowing one way or the other, but it wouldn't surprise me.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Mintz Levin does seem like a curious choice for family law matters. However, someone there may have agreed to do it pro bono under the aegis of a victims' assistance program or something of that sort.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
709
Melrose MA
Any chance Jerry and Phoebe (I think that's his wife's name) finally told Jared "if you want a long drawn out trial we won't pay for the attorney, you'll have to find your own with your money. We'll only pay for a good attorney if you plead guilty and avoid the trial." In other words, after all these years of mistakes the parents finally did the right thing.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
Hank Scorpio said:
Everything else I read said Martel "threatened him with his daughter" - and that she had a knife in her hand.
 
It seems more like she threatened to take the daughter and leave him, possibly while holding a knife because she felt she may need to defend herself. Her threats pushed him over the edge, and he killed her.
Yes, this was how I read the initial account as well.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
Hank Scorpio said:
 
Everything else I read said Martel "threatened him with his daughter" - and that she had a knife in her hand.
 
It seems more like she threatened to take the daughter and leave him, possibly while holding a knife because she felt she may need to defend herself. Her threats pushed him over the edge, and he killed her.
Yeah, I listened to the actual audio, and you're right.  Lousy summary by the Globe there.
 
So less completely shitty than claiming he was acting to defend his daughter's life, but still blaming Martell's own behavior for her death.  I'm comfortable with my initial quality assessment. 
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Sprowl said:
Yes, this was how I read the initial account as well.
 
I think maybe the article was updated after Rovine posted it.  The article is now different from what he quoted with the words "to take" now in the original:  "He claimed that Martel had a knife and was threatening to take their daughter prior to the attack."  
 
It's very hard to see an upside that would ever outweigh the possible better outcome -- either at trial or a better plea if anything goes sideways.  This is simply not a rational cost-benefit decision, looking solely at the possible punishment repercussions.  That doesn't, though, mean it's selfless.  If he did it to spare the victims, or to try to make things easier for his parents, that would be selfless.  (Whatever one thinks about his parents, if that was his subjective motivation, I think it qualifies at least as selfless, for whatever that's worth for a piece of garbage like this guy.)  But it might actually have been selfish.  Perhaps he doesn't feel able to sit through the trial -- perhaps he wants to avoid having to sit through the difficulty of hearing what a shit he is even if it might incrementally lead to a better (meaning lesser) punishment.  Perhaps in his twisted head he somehow has decided that depriving the public or the family of getting to see him on trial gives him a "win."  Who knows. 
 
The suggestion that his lawyer was really doing the parents' bidding and steered him in this direction is interesting.  I'm on the side that says absolutely no way.  No good or even average lawyer would put up with that.  "I don't give a crap who is writing the checks, you're not my clients.  If you want to stop writing the checks, fine.  But if not, I'm going to do my job" is really the only correct answer for a client charged with murder unless the guy is a complete hack.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
Rovin Romine said:
...During the plea, Remy brought up a potential defense/mitigator to the judge (Martel threatening child)...
My wild-ass guess is that pleading guilty was:
 
A) The only way he would have been able to enter this kind of mitigating self-testimony into the record unchallenged;
 
B) Not going to lead to any worse outcome than he could have realistically got otherwise, given overwhelming evidence and an eyewitness who watched him slit Jennifer's throat and stab her multiple times;
 
C) A lot cheaper and less-embarrassing for his family (for whom a "more expensive" defense might not even be a realistic option). 
 
 
Steve Dillard said:
 
Roviin,
One can't overlook the fact that Remy's attorney was paid for by Jerry, who had every interest in making this go away...
 
I don't think there is any realistic basis for thinking that the Remy family had the means and opportunity to pursue a snowball's chance in hell, but somehow persuaded the lawyer to turn it down to save money. 
 
I think the most obvious explanation is the likeliest, by far: Jared was caught red-handed (literally), and his options were:
 
1. Exhaust his family's money and reputation on a hopeless and pointless "not guilty" plea resulting in the same life-imprisonment with all the dirt aired and dissected at length (no plea-bargain was offered), OR;
2. Plead guilty, get "his side" of the story entered into the record without cross-examination, his family's money and reputation kept intact (such as it is), retaining the ability to "re-try" the case if circumstances/laws should ever change...
 
The most obvious explanation is that, under current law, and given the facts, Jared had no hope of ever not being in prison, whether he pled guilty or no. If he pled not-guilty today, and forced a trial, he would drag his family into it and exhaust their money on a hopeless cause that empirically proved his guilt. If he pleads guilty without a trial, he gets to enter his own (maybe bullshit) testimony into the record, and hope, perhaps, for a future change in law that might allow mitigated sentencing for murderers "if their daughter was threatened" in whatever vague way he half-claimed happened. 
 
Occam's razor says that Jared's vague knife/daughter "mitigating" testimony is some variety of bullshit, and that pleading guilty was the best way to get said bullshit on the record unchallenged, to set up whatever faint/imaginary hope of whatever... Occam's razor says that if Jared had tried the "she threatened my daughter with a kinfe" defense at trial, he would have lost, and that door would be shut to him. Occam's razor says that Jared and family could have spent a million dollars on a trial that proved his guilt, and ruined the family, or a lot less on a guilty plea that left a foot in the door for possible changes in law and/or factual data/remembrances sometime down the road. 
 
In general, in life, if you find yourself clearly in the wrong on something, it's not to your benefit to demand that someone "prove you wrong", because they will. Go to the mat when you are in the right, or maybe when it's questionable, but not when you are in the wrong. Better to plead guilty and get a chance to offer a parting excuse, than to plead innocent and be proved guilty and a liar. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Yep,
 
Very good points overall.  One wrinkle is that the M1 result was not foregone.  Jared admitted to using drugs and would have had a good "roid rage" defense.  This isn't an absolute defense, but would attack the idea that the killing was premeditated: thus M2 or manslaughter seems within reach.  Unless there's something we don't know about (like a confession to premeditation) it really does look like Jared abandoned the possibility of parole or  a finite sentence (non-life for manslaughter).  That's a lot to give up, if you're thinking clearly.  
 
Without delving too deeply into Jared's psychology: 1) he did slit his defacto wife's throat and stabbed her in front of multiple witnesses, 2) he displayed little or no remorse for it at the time or since, 3) he spoke as though he was in some measure justified in doing what he did, 4) yet didn't want a trial.  
 
In my experience a lot of guys are willing to admit guilt and accept punishment, but don't want any *additional* punishment.  Also, guys are willing to try a case "for the hell of it" if they have nothing to lose.  You never know if someone's going to screw up on the stand, or what kind of bizarre stuff might come out.  Admitting guilt and accepting the maximum is rare, but it does happen - but in a situation like this, I'd have a *very* long conversation with my client and would probably get a psych eval done on him.   
 
The more I think about this, I come down to two most-likely possibilities.  1) Jared's gotten a stupid idea as to how the process works and is trying to game the system (think's he'll get his plea vacated on a future appeal). 2) Jared is acting out of a combination of admitting guilt (on some level) and a desire to "protect" the rest of his family, including his daughter.  Both would account for the stoic/remorseless demeanor.  Perhaps he sees himself as some kind of martyr.  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
The suggestion that his lawyer was really doing the parents' bidding and steered him in this direction is interesting. I'm on the side that says absolutely no way. No good or even average lawyer would put up with that. "I don't give a crap who is writing the checks, you're not my clients. If you want to stop writing the checks, fine. But if not, I'm going to do my job" is really the only correct answer for a client charged with murder unless the guy is a complete hack.
 
This is spot on.  One cannot sneer, "oooh mommy and daddy got him one of them high-priced fancy power lawyers" (perhaps saving the taxpayers a few dollars along the way) and then rationally suggest that that very same lawyer would do the bidding NOT of his client, but of the person paying the bills. That's NOT what good lawyers do.
 
My guess is that he took the plea out of some combination of not wanting to further wreck his parents and the realization that, in order to gain a conviction of something less than what he pleaded to, he would have to admit, in some form, to being fucked up, which perhaps he is unwilling to do.  Given his sociopathy, I'd bet the balance is heavily tipped towards the latter.  At its most basic, if he goes to trial, he probably NEVER gets to say what he said in court yesterday about the woman he slaughtered (except in the unlikely event he testified). In that sense, the person upthread who said Jared thinks of yesterday as some sort of "victory" is probably onto something.
 
I suspect the next time we hear about this guy is his obit.
 

I miss FJM

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
76
Maine
Perhaps it's as simple as his lawyer and/or others still important to him helped him do the "right" thing (for his kid/family etc...) given the overall circumstances.
 
Then again, perhaps he's a juiced up or otherwise drugged up, or at least still a serriously deranged individual continuing a pattern of irrational and unusual behavior?
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
Brickowski said:
Mintz Levin does seem like a curious choice for family law matters. However, someone there may have agreed to do it pro bono under the aegis of a victims' assistance program or something of that sort.
One of the 2 ML attys for Martels:
Appointed as the firm’s first Pro Bono Partner in 2007, Sue focuses on managing the firm’s pro bono efforts, consisting of 400 varied cases throughout Mintz Levin’s eight offices, and representing numerous pro bono clients on a variety of legal issues. Sue is a Member in the firm’s Litigation Section, and serves as Chair of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee and Chair of the Boston office’s Hiring Committee.
Over the past two decades, Sue’s pro bono experience has primarily focused on sexual assault and domestic violence. In addition to representing hundreds of individual victims, she led a team of Mintz Levin pro bono lawyers who successfully worked for several years to pass Massachusetts legislation that allows sexual assault, stalking, and harassment victims to obtain criminally enforceable protective orders, filling a gap in the existing statute.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Some people are never happy.   http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/27/yvonne-abraham-remy-plea-was-maddeningly-defiant/GsPCe1NgcvBb7UAvIksT4K/story.html
 
The guy plead guilty and explained (in his mind) why he did what he did.  The reasons were (if true) deeply fucked up.  However, I don't get the outrage at the fact that Jared was forthcoming, or the "bewildering mix" of allowing that someone is deeply fucked up, a drug addict, mentally ill, and currently on medication YET expecting them to write some kind of deeply moving mea culpa.  The best quote from the article:
 
 
 
When you are guilty of that level of insane violence, you don’t get to say your victim did anything to make it happen. Ever.
 
Yes you do.  Because you're insane.  Do we honestly think social regulation of language is the issue here?  Or more tellingly, do we honestly think crazy people don't have triggers and that there aren't better and worse ways to deal with said crazy people?  (Please note, I'm not blaming Martel - I'm saying that educating people as to how they should deal with potentially violent/drugged/crazy/obsessed people like Jared Remy could save lives.)
 
***
Regarding Minz Levin - many big firms (and some medium sized firms) have serious pro bono programs; it's a way of paying back, plus the firm gets good PR and practical courtroom training for younger associates.  When I was an overworked APD, I had a client fortunate enough to be taken from me via a pro bono group from Greenburg Traurig.  It was a complex case where the defense was tied up in the police violating my client's civil rights (he had made prior complaints against the officers' friends, he had been beaten during his arrest, video had gone missing, we argued that he was charged after the fact to justify the beating, etc.).  While most defense attorneys can come up with the (obvious) strategies for defending in that situation, how much sweeter is it to have two partners and 3 associates drown the State Attorney in paper?  All those written motions requiring written responses?  All those case law briefs requiring responses?  Tag team depos that can go on for days and leave no stone unturned, rather than the focused "cut to the chase/we're going to trial anyway" depos more common in certain criminal matters.  Nervous civil associates who need to feel out each issue in a depo and will want to depose Everyone?  I remember the ASA gripping her forehead when I told her GT was on the case, "You've got to be fucking kidding me. . ."  The point being that many big firms can really make a difference if they're targeted correctly.  (State dropped the case, eventually.) 
 
***
Last thought - if anyone is curious about the details of the killing (which are reported incorrectly in the article above), as part of the plea process the DA read the facts they expected to prove at trial.  It's on one of those video clips linked to off the Globe site.  While the DA's statement has to be taken with a grain of salt as to whether or not it's "actually true," it does give you a clear picture as to what the DA was going to try to prove.  In this case, given the overlapping witnesses and the physical evidence, much of that statement is probably factually correct.  Including, chillingly, the fact that the intervening neighbors actually put their hands on Jared Remy *before* he stabbed Martel to death.  It's unclear from the statement as to whether or not she would have died from other injuries she'd suffered by that point in time. 
 
There's also a video of the statement by the neighbor, which is equal parts sweet and sort of psycho-needy.  There's also the judge's colloquy of Jared for those who are interested in criminal law/the American justice system.  
 
I can't find the links easily.  Does anyone have them?  Could you post them to the thread? 
 
I'm sure there will be some kind of detailed article written about the actual killing, and/or police reports made available to the public.  I'm not sure how MA law works, but now that the case is over, most of the details of the crime should be available to the public.  They're often withheld out of a desire not to taint the jury pool/ongoing investigation concerns.  FWIW Jared can appeal (indeed, some types of appeal have no limit as to when they can be brought).
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,518
Maine
Might this have any bearing on the custody?
 
Maybe Jerrys lawyers told him that paying for a long trial would minimize their chances at custody?  So jerry tells Jared to take the plea so that Jerry keeps his resources to fight / provide for the child?
 

gtmtnbiker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,723
I like to think that Jared pleaded guilty to spare his parents the expense and embarrassment of a trial.  If he ruins the relationship further with them, he won't have anyone to visit him or to give him money for the prison store, etc.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
bakahump said:
Might this have any bearing on the custody?
 
Maybe Jerrys lawyers told him that paying for a long trial would minimize their chances at custody?  So jerry tells Jared to take the plea so that Jerry keeps his resources to fight / provide for the child?
 
There's already a custody/visitation agreement in place, so what happens with jared's proceeedings is probably irrelevant.
 
And unless the Remys started throwing mud and behaving really badly, that they paid for their son's lawyer would be really unlikely to have any effect on a separate legal proceeding. "One reason I'm ruling against you is because you paid for him to have a defense lawyer" is not something an actual judge does.
 
I like to think that Jared pleaded guilty to spare his parents the expense and embarrassment of a trial. If he ruins the relationship further with them, he won't have anyone to visit him or to give him money for the prison store, etc.
 
I think the next time Jerry Remy talks about his son publicly will be the last time. And I think the last time Jerry Remy talked to his son is the last time he will ever talk to him.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
Rovin Romine said:
Some people are never happy.   http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/27/yvonne-abraham-remy-plea-was-maddeningly-defiant/GsPCe1NgcvBb7UAvIksT4K/story.html
 
The guy plead guilty and explained (in his mind) why he did what he did.  The reasons were (if true) deeply fucked up.  However, I don't get the outrage at the fact that Jared was forthcoming, or the "bewildering mix" of allowing that someone is deeply fucked up, a drug addict, mentally ill, and currently on medication YET expecting them to write some kind of deeply moving mea culpa.  The best quote from the article:
 
 
Yes you do.  Because you're insane.
I don't think there's anything to indicate that Remy was insane, either legally or colloquially, at the time he made this statement.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Myt1 said:
I don't think there's anything to indicate that Remy was insane, either legally or colloquially, at the time he made this statement.
 
Someone who rationalizes the brutal and prolonged beating and stabbing death of his child's mother, based on the idea that she might be leaving with said child, is, colloquially, completely nutso.  Seriously.  If he actually believed that, he's mentally ill.  
 
Lose Remerswaal said:
She's a columnist.  Her job is to comment on the news stories of the day and this is the position she's taking.
 
I  know.  I do get to mock her position though.  
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
Or he's just an asshole who thought that he owned the women he dated and hated the very notion that she would dare to cross him. Not every murderous asshole who thinks he was justified is nuts. Or he was lying.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
My Dixie - Wrecked! said:
One thing that my Criminal Law professor said, which resonates over 30 years later:

"Remember . . . a psychotic is nothing more than a son of a b*tch."
 
Your Criminal Law professor sounds like a jerk whose ignorance in this area creates the kind of prejudice that inhibits real researching, understanding and engaged policies that could actually improve things for all of us.
 

Mr Jums

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2009
625
Somerville
Reverend said:
 
Your Criminal Law professor sounds like a jerk whose ignorance in this area creates the kind of prejudice that inhibits real researching, understanding and engaged policies that could actually improve things for all of us.
 
Not to derail, but I wonder if the law professor was talking about psychopathy, which is very distinct from psychosis. While referring to someone with psychopathy as "nothing more than a son of a bitch" is aggressively oversimplifying matters, it's at the very least a little closer to the truth than saying the same thing about someone with psychosis. "Psychotic" is generally used when talking about someone with psychosis as opposed to psychopathy, but because of the similarity of the words I can see someone making that mistake.
 
That being said, if the professor WAS referring to actual psychosis, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. 
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Reverend said:
 
Your Criminal Law professor sounds like a jerk whose ignorance in this area creates the kind of prejudice that inhibits real researching, understanding and engaged policies that could actually improve things for all of us.
Actually, it sounds like a pithy one-liner from a professor who had taught this class a few times and grown tired of naive law students explaining away monstrous acts with vague references to mental illness (which I know is something that bothers you as well).

And from the standpoint of the subject the professor is teaching (criminal law), he's right -- psychopaths like Jared Remy are nothing but SOBs. Figuring out what made them broken in the first place and how we might prevent that from happening to others has little relevance in a class devoted to the study of the rules society has created to deal with these folks after the fact.

If the professor were teaching psychology instead of criminal law, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
maufman said:
Actually, it sounds like a pithy one-liner from a professor who had taught this class a few times and grown tired of naive law students explaining away monstrous acts with vague references to mental illness (which I know is something that bothers you as well).

And from the standpoint of the subject the professor is teaching (criminal law), he's right -- psychopaths like Jared Remy are nothing but SOBs. Figuring out what made them broken in the first place and how we might prevent that from happening to others has little relevance in a class devoted to the study of the rules society has created to deal with these folks after the fact.

If the professor were teaching psychology instead of criminal law, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
 
As you know, I agree with the basic thrust of what you're saying. On the other hand, I've been that tired and annoyed professor myself. A better line is, "No, he's not psychotic--he's an asshole."
 
As for it being criminal law, well, they still get to vote for some reason. ;) But more to the point, the people who work in corrections consider the increasing use of corrections to house the mentally ill--a job for which those who work there are poorly trained and even more poorly equipped--to be one of the biggest problems facing the criminal justice system today. The staff and COs always do a pretty good job laying that out on the prison trips I've brought students on, but whether it's important enough to the class, I suppose it makes a difference if it's part of an undergraduate curriculum or a law school class.