You are a judge on an appellate court that has been asked to overrule the trial court in the following case. There is no dispute as to the facts.
Sixteen-year-old Chester head-butted, then slammed into the wall his six-year-old neighbor, Daisy. The boy is larger and stronger that most boys his age, but his I.Q. has been tested at 75, the low range of normal. Chester admitted the conduct but denied culpability and expressed no remorse. He claimed he was emulating what he had seen pro-wrestlers do on television.
The police charged him with juvenile delinquency, conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute murder. He was waived to criminal court, convicted and sentenced to death. The jury found as aggravating circumstances the facts that Chester had been in an out of juvenile court since the age of 7 on complaints of assault, robbery and sexual misconduct.
Chester’s attorney has argued: 1) that the case should not have been waived to adult court; 2) that he should not have been found guilty of murder, and 3) that he should not have been sentenced to death.
Discuss these issues with your fellow appellate judges, considering both the law and equity of the case.