AuPair Guilty

Written by Chris Uhl
The information contained herein is only to inform the public and does not create an attorney client relationship with the reader. You should always consult an attorney when seeking legal advice.

The AuPair is guilty, but guilty of what? Bad judgment? Bad Lawyers? Wanting to be eighteen years old? Bad decision making during the trial? Murder? Manslaughter? Guilty of being used by Americans who want inexpensive childcare? Judge Zobel has already made his decision to change the verdict to manslaughter. His quick decision was caused by the media frenzy or maybe the injustice of the sentence. Usually a judge will summarily deny the new trial and JNOV motions at the conclusion of the hearing. JNOV stands for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which just means to change the verdict. There is no requirement for the judge to decide the motion for new trial or JNOV this quickly. He could take up to four months or more. Sometimes the judge will take it under advisement and issue a decision several months later. Most of these types of motions are perfunctory and seldom effect the case. Mandatory sentencing is what has created the outcry from the public. If the judge could have given a sentence of time served, or 1-3 years, or 3-5 years, then no one would care about this case because the judge would have given a lesser sentence.

Is everyone upset over the verdict or the sentence? The major public outcry is unwarranted. She was the only adult with the child when the child was severely hurt. The defense tried to get the jury to believe a previous injury occurred because that is the only defense to this kind of case. The jury said no way to the excuse of a prior injury. Do you know how hard it is to get a consensus of twelve people? Just try it at home with your loved ones. I have tried many jury trials and it is far easier to get someone to change their decision from guilty to not guilty than the other way around. The jury has spoken. Twelve unbiased individuals of our community sat there and listened to the evidence. They said she was guilty.

The sentence does seem harsh for the crime, so it is easy to understand why people are excited. This is mandatory sentencing at work; the kind of sentencing politicians, voters and victims have requested. Fifteen years is a long time, especially for an eighteen-year-old, but there are many defendants in Massachusetts everyday that are found guilty or plead guilty to those same kind of harsh consequences.

It seems as though everyone on television thought the nanny would go free. The defense team gambled with her life and lost. So why should the system now set her free? She made her choice to demand no charge for manslaughter to the jury. Only the defendant can stop the jury charge for a lesser-included crime. Here manslaughter was the lesser-included crime, which would give judge Zobel freedom to sentence the defendant in an appropriate way. If manslaughter is charged then the jury definitely returns a guilty on that charge as a compromise verdict. This was the dilemma.

The defense was trying to force an acquittal, or hung jury. If the jury is hung there might not be a retrial. This was a very risky decision. How arrogant for a lawyer to think a case is that strong! Who knows what a jury will do! If you have tried a lot of cases to a jury you soon realize you never know what a jury will do. Although, it is easy to make that decision or guide your eighteen year old client to that decision. Remember the lawyer is going home and the client is going to jail. If there was an acquittal then the Commonwealth has no right to appeal because this is a criminal case and double jeopardy prevents this remedy to the government.

I understand the defense will appeal the decision and sentence no matter what happens. It seems there is no end to what lawyers will try to do. I would suggest they rethink their position. Zobel gave the nanny a win. Time served is always a win in criminal cases. She should take it and run; run back to England and never return.

<<Back