Michigan murder trial of 13-year-old
A.Prianikoff
By Kate Randall and Larry Roberts
4 November 1999
"World Socialist Web-Site"
The prosecution rested its case November 2 in the murder trial of Nathaniel
Abraham. The defense begins calling witnesses today. The case is being tried
in the Pontiac, Michigan courtroom of Judge Eugene Moore.
Thirteen-year-old Nathaniel Abraham has been charged as an adult with
first-degree murder in the October 29, 1997 shooting death of
eighteen-year-old Ronnie Greene outside a Pontiac convenience store. The
prosecution has also charged Abraham with assault with intent to murder his
neighbor Michael Hudack, as well as two related weapons charges.
Nathaniel Abraham is the youngest child in the state of Michigan, and
possibly the US, to be prosecuted as an adult on murder charges. The
prosecution is trying him under a 1997 Michigan statute that allows children
younger than 14 to be prosecuted as adults for serious and violent offenses
such as murder, rape, arson and armed robbery.
Abraham was only 11 years old at the time of the shooting, and, according to
psychologists, functioned at the mental level of an average child of six to
eight years of age. If convicted, he faces life in prison without parole.
The prosecution, led by Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Lisa Hulushka,
began presenting its case last Friday. It became clear in the first three
days of testimony that there is no evidenciary basis to support the charge
of first-degree murder. Rather, the state has concocted a spurious case,
seeking to leverage what is at most an instance of involuntary manslaughter
into a murder charge, in an effort to set a precedent and legitimize the
1997 law.
In its opening statement and its cross-examination of prosecution witnesses,
the defense was able to refute the major facets of the prosecution's case.
As lead defense attorney Geoffrey Fieger said in his opening statement, the
prosecution has "zero evidence" that Abraham set out to deliberately kill
Ronnie Greene.
To obtain a conviction for first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, both intent and motive. But by the prosecution's
own admission, Abraham did not know Ronnie Greene. Fieger argued in his
opening statement, “Where is the motive? He had no motive to kill anybody.
He didn't know Ronnie Greene, let alone premeditatively kill anybody. Have
you ever heard of a first-degree murder without a motive?"
To dispute the contention that Abraham fired the fatal shot with the
intention of killing Greene, Fieger cited the original police report, which
stipulates that the defendant was standing 288 feet from Greene at the time
of the shooting. The defense maintains that Abraham was shooting at a clump
of trees situated about halfway between his location and the convenience
store outside of which Greene and two friends were standing. This 10- to
20-feet-wide cluster of trees is followed by a steep decline that ends at
the street where the store is located. If Abraham did, in fact, fire the
fatal bullet, according to the defense, he was neither aiming at Greene nor
intending to harm him.
The autopsy report underscores the physical implausibility, if not
impossibility, of Abraham taking aim and deliberately firing at Greene. The
report concludes that the bullet which killed Greene entered through the top
of his head. This implies that a direct shot would have had to come from
above. But Abraham was standing a considerable distance away, on the other
side of the trees. The most logical explanation is that suggested by the
defense—that the fatal bullet ricocheted off of a tree.
Under cross-examination, a prosecution witness acknowledged that the .22
caliber rifle that fired the shot had no stock and a damaged barrel, making
it next to impossible to accurately aim at a target. Moreover, the shooting
took place at night, after 10:00 p.m.
The opening days of the trial produced new evidence suggesting that the
fatal shot may have come from somewhere else. Carlos Falu, who was outside
of the convenience store at the time of the shooting, testified that he
heard shots fired from a party of about 50 people located behind the store.
He said he recognized the distinct click of a .22 caliber rifle being cocked
and the sound came from the direction of the party.
Police Sgt. Brian York, the lead police investigator, admitted under cross
examination that the police never searched the area of the party behind the
store for spent cartridges. He also acknowledged that the police did not
have the cartridge from the bullet that killed Greene.
The prosecution tacked on the supplementary charge of assault with intent to
murder Michael Hudack in a transparent effort to demonstrate a pattern of
homicidal violence on Abraham's part. The state alleges that Abraham had a
pathological compulsion to kill, and having failed to kill Hudack, the
11-year-old seized on Greene as his victim. But the Hudack charge was also
discredited in the course of testimony.
The prosecution claims that Abraham, while firing a .22 rifle in his
backyard with his friend Marcel Moolhuizen earlier on the evening of October
29, 1997, attempted to shoot Hudack as the neighbor stood on his porch
several houses away. Abraham and his friend Marcel have admitted to shooting
at the garage, lights and trees in the vicinity of Hudack's house. They both
deny aiming at Hudack.
Hudack testified that he walked onto his porch when he heard what he thought
were firecrackers. He felt something whiz by his head and thought it might
be a bullet. He saw the two boys, but never saw either of them fire a gun.
He did not make an emergency 911 call, but instead phoned the front desk of
the Pontiac Police Department to report the incident.
The following day Hudack arrived home and found young Nathaniel outside his
house. When he confronted Abraham about the previous night, the boy readily
admitted he and a friend had been shooting a gun. Hudack said he scolded
Nathaniel and told him to go get the gun. To his surprise, Abraham ran and
got the rifle and gave it to him, telling him he was sorry. "Just get rid of
it before I get into trouble with it," Abraham told Hudack.
Hudack hid the gun behind a couch. He did not call the police until the next
day when he read in the paper that someone had been shot at the nearby
convenience store. The police then came for the gun and later picked up
Nathaniel from Lincoln Junior High School.
Asked by Fieger, "Do you have any evidence that Nate was trying to kill
you?" Hudack answered, "No." Sgt. Brian York admitted in testimony that he,
not Hudack, urged police to bring charges against Abraham for the incident.
Marcel Moolhuizen testified that he and Nathaniel were playing with the gun
because "it was something to do." Under cross-examination by Fieger, the
youth said he never saw Michael Hudack that night, and never saw Nathaniel
aim at anyone.
In response to a question from Fieger, Moolhuizen said he was never asked by
the police whether he intended to shoot Hudack. Moolhuizen has not been
charged in the incident.
The testimony of Hudack and Moolhuizen supports the defense contention that
the prosecutor's office and police concocted the attempted murder charge in
an attempt to illustrate Abraham's intent to kill, and thereby bolster the
first-degree murder charge for the shooting of Greene.
At the close of his opening statement to the jury, Fieger took the
unorthodox step of playing excerpts from the audio-tape of Abraham's
confession to the police, recorded on October 30, 1997. Judge Moore had
earlier ruled that the confession could not be submitted as evidence because
Abraham and his mother had not been told that the police were investigating
a homicide. However the Michigan Court of Appeals overruled Moore's
decision.
Far from boosting the prosecution's case, however, the taped confession
exposed the crude manner in which the investigating detectives led and
manipulated the child into saying what they wanted to hear.
The nine women and five men seated on the jury—who have revealed little
emotion thus far in the trial—listened closely as Fieger played the tape.
They heard the detectives repeatedly ask questions leading Nathaniel to
admit that he fired the shot that killed Ronnie Greene. Nathaniel, audibly
intimidated and confused, explained that he was shooting at trees. His
statements indicated, moreover, that he was not even aware that he had hit
anyone: "I didn't think nothing of it at first, and then I saw the
ambulance."
Fieger questioned how, in light of such a statement, the firing of the fatal
shot could have been deliberate, involving "real and substantial
reflection," as the prosecution must prove in order to convict Abraham of
first-degree murder.
Assistant Prosecutor Halushka began her opening statement by scrawling in
large letters on an easel, "I'm gonna shoot somebody." This comment,
allegedly made by Abraham to an 11-year-old friend at school—and specifying
no intended victim—was the foundation of the prosecution's argument that
Abraham formed the intent to commit first-degree murder. Halushka sought to
portray the pre-teen child as a cold-blooded criminal who would not rest
until he satisfied his desire to kill.
Friends of Abraham called to testify by the prosecution failed to support
Halushka's portrayal of the defendant as a predator. Frederick Jenkins, one
of Nathaniel's best friends, testified he had told the police he thought the
shooting was an accident because Nathaniel “wouldn't do anything like that
... he wasn't that type of kid.” Stephanie Saldana, a reluctant witness for
the prosecution, repeatedly said that Nathaniel “was only playing” when he
told her that he was going to kill somebody.
One incident on the opening day of the trial provided a telling illustration
of the prosecution's methods. During the lunch break following the opening
arguments, the prosecution re-measured the distance that separated Abraham
from Ronnie Greene on the night of Greene's death. For the past two years
the prosecution has alleged that the fatal shot was fired from 288 feet. But
after the lunch break the prosecution submitted into evidence a new report,
claiming the previous estimate was inaccurate and the distance was actually
200 feet. Fieger objected, arguing that the prosecution "can't go out and
start changing the evidence." The judge sidestepped the issue, ruling that
both sets of evidence would be allowed.
The opening phase of the trial has already made clear that the state set out
to exploit a tragic and accidental death, resulting from the actions of a
mentally-impaired child, to set a precedent for trying and punishing
children as adults. To validate the barbaric 1997 law, the prosecution had
to turn a troubled child from a poor working class family into a predatory
murderer, charging him with a suitably heinous offense—notwithstanding the
fact that the evidence provided no support for such a charge.
What lies behind the concocted case against Nathaniel Abraham is the
political motivation of the state: its drive to build up the repressive
powers of the police and judiciary, in the first instance against the youth,
but more fundamentally against the entire working class.
mebe...@hotmail.com
year olds. What next? The electric chair? First most leftists on this
site ignore what is going on in the States by claiming everything is
normal (aka J. Paris) then every report one reads or hears one
understands that the USA is furthest down the path out of every major
imperialist power towards an open undeclared dictatorship.
2 million in jail and according to Time magazine if lock-ups continue
at this rate half the population will be in prison over the next two
decades.
Another first for the American world order!
Meberry68
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
kevin murphy
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
kevin murphy
What in the land of liberty and equality they are locking up thirteen
year olds. What next? The electric chair? First most leftists on this
site ignore what is going on in the States by claiming everything is
normal (aka J. Paris)
Don't confuse the cyberspace microcults with socialists who are active.
The ISO initiated a "Campaign to End the Death Penalty" that has
stopped the executions of many on death row, particularly in the
Chigago area. Also see Sharon Smith's article in SWR this month on the
growing gap between rich and poor in U.S.
Kevin Murphy
James Paris
13-year-old on trial as adult for murder
Midwest Worker
No. 24 -- November 1999
PONTIAC, Oct. 31 (NPNS) -- The prosecution is expected to end its case this
week in the first-degree murder trial of Nathaniel Abraham.
Abraham is accused of shooting Ronnie Greene Jr. outside a local store in
Pontiac with a .22-caliber handgun.
Abraham is being tried as an adult under a 1997 Michigan law that removes
the minimum age that someone can be tried under adult charges.
The Abraham case is developing into a test of this barbaric statute.
After Abraham's arrest in October 1997, a court-appointed psychiatrist
estimated his cognitive abilities at that time to be only on the level of a
six- to eight-year-old.
Abraham's mother repeatedly sought help for her son prior to the shooting,
after he had exhibited angry outbursts and a tendency towards depression.
He was tested for learning disabilities and was found to have an IQ of 78
and the verbal skills of a kindergartner.
In spite of this, the Oakland County prosecutor and the state of Michigan
are trying Abraham as a competent adult.
In the opening days of the trial, Abraham was brought into court wearing
shackles on his wrists and ankles.
The removal of these bonds took an uncomfortably long time, including
Abraham having to bend over a chair so the sheriff could remove the cuffs
from his ankles.
Only after a picture of the boy in these shackles was printed in major
newspapers across the country did the judge order the sheriffs to remove the
shackles before Abraham entered the courtroom.
The defense team in this case is headed by Geoffrey Fieger, formerly lead
counsel for assisted suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian and recently the
Democratic candidate for governor of Michigan.
Fieger's strategy is based on the rejection of adult charges for a mentally
incompetent 13-year-old.
The trial of Nathaniel Abraham exposes the barbaric character of American
capitalism as we enter the next millennium.
In the "most democratic" country on earth (at least, if you believe the
bosses' propaganda), a 13-year-old boy with the mental capacity of someone
half his age is being held to the same standard as an adult who is well
aware of what he or she had done.
At the beginning of this century, Polish Marxist Rosa Luxemburg declared
that humanity's two roads were either "socialism or barbarism."
We are seeing the growth of barbarism. Our alternative is clear.
-30-
V.N. Gelis wrote:
>
> First most leftists on this
> site ignore what is going on in the States by claiming everything is
mebe...@hotmail.com
> We are seeing the growth of barbarism. Our alternative is clear.
>
> -30-
>
> V.N. Gelis wrote:
> >
> > First most leftists on this
> > site ignore what is going on in the States by claiming everything is
> > normal (aka J. Paris) then every report one reads or hears one
> > understands that the USA is furthest down the path out of every
major
> > imperialist power towards an open undeclared dictatorship.
>
That's funny James because on a previous posting you implied I am a
crackpot as I wrote an article about the states from the fact that I
arrived to Detroit International Airport and stayed for only 72 hours
and how could I write all those nasty things about good ole U S of
fucking A!
Now you say the states is heading for barbarism - cos you didn't say as
much when we were there.
Maybe next time I will arrive by boat across the ocean, stay longer
lets say 96 hours and come up with different conclusions, that
everything is hunky dory.
Instead of replying to the political points I made in the article you
brush them aside and ignore them. That is obviously your privilige, but
from past experience this only shows a lack of political will and
honesty. Not everyone sees things like everyone else and not everyone
has had the same experiences...
meberry68
James Paris
>
> That's funny James because on a previous posting you implied I am a
> crackpot as I wrote an article about the states from the fact that I
> arrived to Detroit International Airport and stayed for only 72 hours
> and how could I write all those nasty things about good ole U S of
> fucking A!
No, I said it was foolish and un-Marxist for someone who has been in the
U.S. for only 72 hours to declare it "fascist". It is nothing more than
impressionism in the pure. To make such off-the-cuff declarations is the
act of a "crackpot".
> Now you say the states is heading for barbarism - cos you didn't say as
> much when we were there.
You were too busy arguing your neo-Kautskyism to listen to us. You should
hook up with the CPGB's right wing. You both look at the world in the same
light (if you want to call it that).
> Maybe next time I will arrive by boat across the ocean, stay longer
> lets say 96 hours and come up with different conclusions, that
> everything is hunky dory.
Ninety-six hours isn't long enough to get a grasp on the class struggle in a
given country. See, that's your problem. You're so quck to make judgements
based on surface information that you don't take the time to ANALYZE what's
really happening. Hence, we get to hear your "politics" on immigration, the
New World Order and your own special brand of "supraimperialism".
Impressionism. That's all. Impressionism.
> Instead of replying to the political points I made in the article you
> brush them aside and ignore them. That is obviously your privilige, but
> from past experience this only shows a lack of political will and
> honesty.
Even Lenin and Trotsky recognized that there were some arguements that were
not worth having. An argument with you over whether or not the MWG (and, by
implication, the International Workers' Committee) are "imperialism's ...
foot soldiers" qualifies in that category.
As I said in my first response to your article here: "Even slander should
make some sense".
> Not everyone sees things like everyone else and not everyone
> has had the same experiences...
True. So maybe you should have sat down and LISTENED to us instead of just
dismissing the MWG by saying, "I'm just passing through, I'm not here to
debate you."
> meberry68
James Paris, MWG-IWC
http://www.marxistworker.org/
mebe...@hotmail.com
"James Paris" <jpa...@marxistworker.org> wrote:
> V.N. Gelis wrote:
> >
> > That's funny James because on a previous posting you implied I am a
> > crackpot as I wrote an article about the states from the fact that I
> > arrived to Detroit International Airport and stayed for only 72
hours
> > and how could I write all those nasty things about good ole U S of
> > fucking A!
>
> No, I said it was foolish and un-Marxist for someone who has been in
the
> U.S. for only 72 hours to declare it "fascist". It is nothing more
than
> impressionism in the pure. To make such off-the-cuff declarations is
the
> act of a "crackpot".
I haven't declared the USA fascist. The tendency towards neo-fascism
and authoritarianism isn't fully developed fascism. Slight point but
your misrepresentation is deliberate and calling my acts crackpot is
also illuminating. You invited us to your so-called conference, we
aren't allowed to speak and we should sit and LISTEN! This is obviusly
a new higher level of American debate probably learnt in the stalin
school of Gus Hall on how to operate eductaionals.
1. We invited foreign cdes.
2. If we disagree with them don't let them talk.
3. Get them to listen.
4. Erase them off the programme.
5. Send them packing with a made in the USA political label.
96 hours isn't enough to analyse the class struggle in a country. I
didn't aanalyse the class struggle in the USA - lying again.
For some people 50 years ain't enough to analyse anything...
Time isn't the issue as we all live under the American Empire and I
have been to the State more than once over a period of ten years, I
have worked with Americans and I read Amnerican newspapers. Next you
will be telling me to not comment on a countryt unless I have been born
there and resident there for the last twenty years.
Its funny that I came to your so-called conference at my own expense,
you then say 3 days before that i am not invited, not to me directly as
i was in the states already, and then you have the audacity (which is
an American trait) i need to sit down and listen to the Pope of North
American Marxism aka J. Paris.
If words had limits you certainly surpassed them.
Meberry68
PS no wonder no other international organisation turned up. They know
better!
Hunter H. Watson
<murphyN...@brandeis.edu.invalid> wrote:
> meberry68 wrote:
> What in the land of liberty and equality they are locking up thirteen
> year olds. What next? The electric chair? First most leftists on this
> site ignore what is going on in the States by claiming everything is
> normal (aka J. Paris)
>
> Don't confuse the cyberspace microcults with socialists who are active.
> The ISO initiated a "Campaign to End the Death Penalty" that has
> stopped the executions of many on death row, particularly in the
> Chigago area. Also see Sharon Smith's article in SWR this month on the
> growing gap between rich and poor in U.S.
>
> Kevin Murphy
Where do Marxist/Leninists stand on the slogan "End the Death Penalty"?
And if they say they support it, are they telling us the truth? Lenin
was quite up front about the fact that the regime could not do without
it. Do we see kinder, gentler Bolsheviks today? Can we trust them? Why?
kevin murphy
That's funny James because on a previous posting you implied I am a
my own expense, you then say 3 days before that i am not invited, not
to me directly as i was in the states already, and then you have the
audacity (which is an American trait) i need to sit down and listen to
the Pope of North American Marxism aka J. Paris.
Mr. Meberry68 spends his hard-earned wages flying across the ocean to
Detroit to listen to James and Sidney and has the audacity to claim he
is *not* a crackpot?
Kevin Murphy
mebe...@hotmail.com
kevin murphy <murphyN...@brandeis.edu.invalid> wrote:
> Meberry68 wrote:
> That's funny James because on a previous posting you implied I am a
> crackpot [snip] Its funny that I came to your so-called conference at
> my own expense, you then say 3 days before that i am not invited, not
> to me directly as i was in the states already, and then you have the
> audacity (which is an American trait) i need to sit down and listen to
> the Pope of North American Marxism aka J. Paris.
>
> Mr. Meberry68 spends his hard-earned wages flying across the ocean to
> Detroit to listen to James and Sidney and has the audacity to claim he
> is *not* a crackpot?
>
> Kevin Murphy
>
would that imply: reading Le Monde on the benefits of the OSCE in the
balkans, or lectures as to why Korea is an imperialist state like
Greece and hence supporting it in a conflict with imperialism would be
tantamount to class betrayal?
Murphy, whatever drugs your on, increase the dose to stabilise yourself.
Meberry68
A.Prianikoff
"When Nathaniel needed a system there was no system there for him"
By Larry Roberts
10 November 1999
Gerald A. Shiener is a forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defense
in the Nathaniel Abraham trial taking place in Pontiac, Michigan. The World
Socialist Web Site spoke to Dr. Shiener outside the courtroom.
WSWS: You had the opportunity to review Nathaniel's records. What did they
show about his mental abilities?
GS: That he was, at best, a very immature and developmentally disabled
11-year-old who was functioning at the level of a 6- to 8-year-old, who
didn't have the ability to understand that there would be unintended
consequences to his actions. The most compelling example of that was when he
kept shooting even though “they told me not to shoot because I might get in
trouble or someone might get hurt” because he wasn't aiming at anything.
That's the concrete way that a small child thinks.
Many 11-year-olds think that way, and a 6- to 8-year-old would absolutely
think that way. They'll be so concrete and so direct they couldn't imagine
that if they weren't shooting at anyone that someone could get hurt.
WSWS: In other words, outside of the immediate activity they are involved
in, they don't see beyond that?
GS: That's right. Their ability to see into the future, or to see what might
happen, or to look at a range of possibilities—they are unable to do that,
and that's on the basis of their brain development.
WSWS: Your testimony was important from the standpoint of educating adults
about the intellectual capacity of children, particularly what you said
about children having a smaller brain mass. Could you explain what you said
about the stage of development of an 11-year-old?
GS: Yes. An 11-year-old has about 25 percent less brain mass than an adult.
An adult's brain weighs about 2.5 pounds and an 11-year-old's weighs about
1.8 pounds. That's .7 of a pound, over half a pound of brain tissue that an
11-year-old will gain as he grows. And that tissue is important and serves a
purpose.
The nature of brain tissue is different because the insulation and wiring of
the brain becomes denser as you grow. And that means that an adult brain can
activate certain discrete and small focal areas, whereas in a child a
certain brain area is less focused, it's more general. That's why when kids
get excited they start jumping and moving around. That's why they have to
act because they stimulate broader areas of the brain when they become
excited.
WSWS: In other words, they are unable to detect minute developments and
changes?
GS: And differences. They cannot think the way adults think.
WSWS: Are you aware of a new bill that is pending in the US Congress similar
to the law in Michigan that has been used to prosecute Nathaniel Abraham? Do
you have any feelings about this?
GS: There is a strong tradition in psychiatry that it has always provided
recommendations to the juvenile courts about the issue of social control and
the behavior of adolescence. I think that's been there for a reason.
I think that it is very dangerous when you start holding small children like
Nathaniel Abraham to the standard of behavior of an adult. There is a very
good reason why we have a juvenile justice system, a separate justice system
to deal with these kinds of behavior—even when they are fatal and lethal,
even when a child shoots someone—because children are different.
They can pass a federal law that adultizes children. I think it's only a way
to appease the kind of outrage we have for out-of-control children, and the
anger we have for the parents who fail to control them. But I don't think it
solves the problem and I don't think it is good for society. All it will do
is put a bunch of kids in jail; it will clog up the adult courts, and it
will make for more trials like this one.
WSWS: What do think should be done with Nathaniel?
GS: I think we need to take a look at our juvenile justice system. I have
very strong feelings about how we need a comprehensive program to address
troubled youth. I think we need more psychiatric treatment to be available
rather than less.
Michigan is the poster child for doing away with public mental health, and
funding state mental health systems and residential care. That doesn't mean
that I think it's right. I think it is a tragedy and the way the public
mental health system has been dismantled in the state of Michigan is
appalling.
I work in a community mental health center and I have for my entire career.
From the time I was a medical student and resident at Sinai Hospital I have
seen the funding and support for those programs dry up. I have seen the
hospitals close. And I think we threw out the baby with the bath water.
We need residential facilities for youth, who are disadvantaged, and we need
programs to teach them how to live in the community. That doesn't mean they
need to be all community-based.
WSWS: The system failed Nathaniel and his family. They did not provide the
type of assistance that he needed.
GS: I would put it differently. When Nathaniel needed a system there was no
system there for him.