Glen Sacks on Gayle Owens' execution
Michael Snyder
TN Governor Considers Fate of Woman on Death Row for Murdering her Husband
April 23rd, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here's an interesting editorial (Memphis Commercial Appeal, 4/23/10).
It's about a murder case that happened way back in 1985. Why is the
paper editorializing on that case 25 years later? Well, it seems that
one of the defendants, Gaile Owens, was sentenced to be executed and
it's now up to the governor of Tennessee to decide whether the execution
should go forward or not. Why it's taken 25 years for the issue to come
up, I don't know.
In 1985, Gaile Owens hired Sydney Porterfield to murder her husband,
Ronald Owens, and the deed was done. Porterfield attacked Owens in his
home and bludgeoned him to death with a tire iron. Porterfield is on
death row, but it's not his case the paper is concerned about; it's
Owens's. You see,
...Owens may become the first woman to be executed in Tennessee
since 1820.
She could also be the first woman in America to be executed for a
crime committed under the influence of battered woman's syndrome.
Really? It turns out, on closer examination, that that statement is
either outright false or at best misleading. Why? Because at trial,
there was no testimony whatsoever about "battered woman syndrome." The
defense didn't raise the issue in pleadings, didn't call a single
witness to testify about the subject and didn't raise the issue on
appeal. As a consequence, the prosecution didn't have an opportunity to
cross-examine any defense expert on the issue or call an expert of its
own in rebuttal. Come to think of it, as far as we can tell, the
defendant herself never raised the issue with her attorneys.
But to the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Owens's was a "crime committed
under the influence of battered woman's syndrome." They know this even
though there was no evidence presented at trial to support the
proposition. This is what passes for balanced, responsible opinion.
This is not to say that there's not a professional who believes that
Owens suffered from "battered woman syndrome." There is; her name is
Dr. Lynne Zager. She's the same Dr. Lynne Zager that testified in the
Mary Winkler trial that the defendant suffered from "battered woman
syndrome." Mary Winkler spent less than a year in jail for the shotgun
death of her husband.
But in the Owens case, Zager never said a word about "battered woman
syndrome." She had been appointed by the court to evaluate Owens for
competency to stand trial and, that's what she did. Here's her
affidavit describing her involvement 24 years after the fact.
Zager says she evaluated Owens and found her mentally competent to stand
trial. What that means in part is that she was able to assist in her
defense, i.e. provide important information to her attorneys, understand
their advice, etc. So it's interesting that Zager says that Owens was
competent to assist her attorneys, but apparently didn't provide them
any information about her "battered woman syndrome." That would tend to
undercut Zager's opinion that Owens suffered from that condition. Owens
was mentally competent, but didn't mention her "battering" to her
attorneys. That would suggest to many people that no "battering"
occurred, but not to Zager.
Read paragraph 8 of Zager's affidavit and what immediately jumps out is
the fact that there's absolutely no reference to any form of physical
abuse. Indeed, Zager says Owens told her about her husband's
extramarital affairs, "sexual humiliation and overall mistreatment."
She also said he threatened to divorce her and take the kids. This
apparently made her "depressed, insecure, fearful of him and could not
cope."
That, according to Zager constitutes "battered woman syndrome."
Needless to say, it also describes the emotional state of probably half
the population of the country at one time or another. Somehow, that
half of the population manages to refrain from hiring a hit man to
murder their nearest and dearest.
But one of the salient features of Zager's extremely revealing affidavit
is the lack of any reference to Owens's legal competency at the time of
the murder. That, of course is the whole point of the defense - that
Owens lacked the mens rea, i.e. the requisite mental state to be held
responsible for her crime. Never has Zager offered an opinion about
that, not at trial, not in her affidavit, not at any time in the ensuing
25 years. In fact, in her affidavit, she says clearly that she could
not have done so at the time of trial. She writes.
"I did not have sufficient data (at the time of the evaluation) to
make a recommendation regarding her mental condition at the time of the
offense."
And neither did anyone else, which is why no one has ever opined that
Gaile Owens lacked the mental capacity to be held legally accountable
for the contract killing of her husband.
So it's more than a trifle odd that the Memphis Commercial Appeal
considers that to be an established fact. It's particularly odd
considering the writer of the editorial clearly had a copy of Zager's
affidavit and quoted from it.
Up to now, you might have gotten the impression that Dr. Lynne Zager is
at least a reasonably responsible professional, but read on. You may
change your mind.
Paragraphs 9 tells us just what "battered woman syndrome" is. Among
other things, a "repetition of the cycle of violence" creates "learned
helplessness" in the woman, causing anxiety, fear, etc. Just how hiring
a hitman to murder your husband indicates "helplessness," Zager doesn't
explain, but Paragraph 10 is the real kicker.
In it we learn that "Ms. Owens did not tell me that her husband
physically and sexually abused her." In short, neither Zager nor anyone
else, apparently including Owens herself has a single shred of evidence
that the woman's husband abused her. That abuse is clearly a necessary
pre-condition for "battered woman syndrome" to exist. And yet Zager and
- as night follows day - the Memphis Commercial Appeal conclude that it
did exist.
In short, a woman presents with symptoms like fear, depression and
anxiety, that can have innumerable causes. She says nothing about
physical or sexual abuse which are integral parts of a diagnosis of
"battered woman syndrome." She never raises the issue with her
attorneys, never presents the possiblity at her trial. And yet Dr.
Lynne Zager and the Memphis Commercial Appeal conclude without
questioning that to execute Gaile Owens would be to execute a woman who
was suffering from the syndrome when she hired the hitman to kill her
husband.
It's a perfect theoretical world - no facts, just opinions. Actually,
there are facts, but inconveniently, they tend to contradict the
opinions, so it's best to leave them out. And of course that quaint old
notion of letting the other side have a say is left out as well. So
there's no opportunity for the prosecution to take apart Dr. Lynne Zager
on the witness stand; no other psychological expert got a chance to
offer another opinion; and the jury never got to decide whom it believed.
It's like virtual reality; the creator decides what gets included and
what doesn't. No other reality enters in. Maybe it would help to view
it through 3-D glasses.
Pj
we just had one get away with it here.... the guys family reckon it is
a load of bull....http://www.kidsolo.com/falls-cleared-of-murder/1684/
Michael Snyder
It's the female get-out-of-jail-free card. Just claim that he abused
you,
and you can put a bullet in his head.
Oh, and come back 2 hours later to administrate a coup de grace.
Never can be too careful with them abusers, I tells ya...
Mick
> It's the female get-out-of-jail-free card. Just claim that he abused
> you, and you can put a bullet in his head.
>
Sure, she was guilty. But then being in jail for 25 years and trying
to get a death penalty commuted is not "Get of out of jail free."
Sorry.
Anyone who is on death row now that has not had a lawyer push every
possible defense, no matter how absurd that defense, is not getting
good legal representation.
If a stretch f theimagination says that the twinkie defense could
work? Your lawyer isn't doing his job if he doesn't try it. Same
principle here.
Michael Snyder
> On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Michael Snyder <msny...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > It's the female get-out-of-jail-free card. Just claim that he abused
> > you, and you can put a bullet in his head.
>
> Sure, she was guilty. But then being in jail for 25 years and trying
> to get a death penalty commuted is not "Get of out of jail free."
> Sorry.
Was referring to Pj's case. See link above.
Chocolic
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4c32d6fb$0$22153$742e...@news.sonic.net...
The woman conspired to have her husband murdered. She did it, she admits
it, and even though she was manipulative and a pathological liar, she never
used the "battered woman syndrome". What a strange case. Again, I don't
think the DP qualifies for this case, I do think LWOP does. But there is
always going to be a journalist that just can't fathom that a woman can
kill, or conspire to have killed, her husband without thinking there must
have been domestic abuse involved. When researching anybody that has
murdered somebody, you can usually dig up a reason in their background, such
as their home life as a child, or whatever. Still doesn't make it okay.
She had a way out and didn't take it.
Chocolic