I don't think there's any way this case is going to trial. I also don't think there's any way she'll be tried as a juvenile. She's 15, and from the videos/webpages she seems to act her age. Many states charge as an adult at 16. If there's sufficient evidence this crime was premeditated, I'd say the only way she'd be charged as a juvenile is if there was strong evidence of a mental defect that caused her to act much younger than her age. And I am no psychologist/neurologist, but from her pages, she seems age appropriate. History of violence and even "mental illness" (depression, etc.) doesn't counteract that she acts like an adult. And by age appropriate I mean, for example, if she were 15 but she acted like an 8 year old - reading at that age level, being interested in things young children are (dolls, toys, etc.). I mean real stunted development.
I think her lawyer knows there's no way, unless all of the rumors & "premeditation" from LE are false, that she'll be charged as a juvenile. BUT I think he's playing up the "she's a child" aspect in order to have some leverage with the state to both: get the proceedings sealed/gag ordered, and to try to cast doubt on the state's case. In plea negotiations (which are usually done even eventually there is no plea offer) the defense is going to want to press the fact that there could be one bleeding-heart liberal on the jury who believes in rehabilitation and won't convict a 15 year old to life in prison. Even if this is a grotesque case, there's always the worry that one person will think she has a chance to "change."
I think eventually there will be a plea giving her something like 25 years - life in prison. Although, if that's on the table, AB might want to just chance it and go for a trial.
"Troubled youth" are a hard sell, not legally, but for jurors. Even in the worst crimes for some people its very hard to deal with the "personal" responsibility that YOU as a juror are putting a 15 year old in prison for the rest of her life. The only way to really counteract that burden is when prosecutors are very careful to explain that it's not a choice jurors are making, but rather the law requires them to render a guilty (or not guilty) verdict if the evidence meets a certain threshold. But personally I think its just legal fiction, people feel responsible no matter what.
I think her lawyer knows there's no way, unless all of the rumors & "premeditation" from LE are false, that she'll be charged as a juvenile. BUT I think he's playing up the "she's a child" aspect in order to have some leverage with the state to both: get the proceedings sealed/gag ordered, and to try to cast doubt on the state's case. In plea negotiations (which are usually done even eventually there is no plea offer) the defense is going to want to press the fact that there could be one bleeding-heart liberal on the jury who believes in rehabilitation and won't convict a 15 year old to life in prison. Even if this is a grotesque case, there's always the worry that one person will think she has a chance to "change."
I think eventually there will be a plea giving her something like 25 years - life in prison. Although, if that's on the table, AB might want to just chance it and go for a trial.
"Troubled youth" are a hard sell, not legally, but for jurors. Even in the worst crimes for some people its very hard to deal with the "personal" responsibility that YOU as a juror are putting a 15 year old in prison for the rest of her life. The only way to really counteract that burden is when prosecutors are very careful to explain that it's not a choice jurors are making, but rather the law requires them to render a guilty (or not guilty) verdict if the evidence meets a certain threshold. But personally I think its just legal fiction, people feel responsible no matter what.
