Judging Freedom - INSTANT REACTION: Ahmaud Arbery Trial Verdict

Episode Date: November 25, 2021

Today on Judging Freedom, Judge Napolitano explains the verdict - what is malice murder and what is felony murder - in the Ahmaud Arbery Murder case. #Liberatarian #JudgeNapolitano #AhmaudArberySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone, Judge Napolitano here, jumping on my podcast, just you and me, trying to explain to you what happened in the Aubrey murder trial. The jury verdict is in, the defendants have effectively been convicted of murder, but it's not as cut and dry as that because of the way the law is worded. So all three of them were charged with what is called in Georgia malice murder. The rest of the country calls that first degree murder. It basically is a murder that was planned and plotted in advance. It wasn't a spontaneous killing. So in this case, the father who actually, excuse me, the son who actually pulled the trigger, not the father who was in the truck with him and not the fellow following, was convicted of malice murder or first degree murder.

First degree murder is life in prison. following was convicted of malice murder or first-degree murder. First-degree murder is life in prison. The father and their neighbor who was driving behind them and filming these horrible events were convicted of felony murder. Now, what's felony murder? Felony murder is a killing or actually a death that occurs in the commission of a felony. So if a bank robber is robbing a teller in a bank and the teller has a heart attack, the bank robber can be convicted of felony murder because the government only has to prove that you intended to commit the felony and that as a result of the felony, somebody else died.

So in this case, the felony is chasing a person with a truck. The other felony is agreeing to kill the person. In this case, there was an agreement between the father, the son, and their neighbor to chase Aubrey with their truck. That's the felony. And as a result of that felony, Aubrey died. Therefore, they are convicted of felony murder, even though the father and the neighbor never pulled the trigger.

The difference between first-degree murder in Georgia, malice murder, and felony murder is the length of time in jail. So for felony murder, the length of time is about 20 years. For malice murder in Georgia, for the rest of us, first-degree murder, that's imprisonment without any parole whatsoever. So all three defendants were remanded to the custody of the local sheriff, eventually to be sentenced to long prison terms in a permanent Georgia prison. They, of course, are also facing a federal prosecution. Now, you may say, well, how can they be prosecuted twice for the same crime? I don't think they should be prosecuted twice for the same crime, but I'm not on the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has said that if the defendant's behavior breaks both a state law and a federal law, same behavior, breaking two sets of laws, that he can be tried for a violation of both laws.

So they've been tried and convicted of violating state laws against murder. They can now be tried in a federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, scheduled for February, for violating Mr. Aubrey's civil rights by killing him. That would effectively, if convicted, sentence them to life in prison. So my view is that these three guys now convicted felons, convicted murderers, are unlikely to see the light of day for the rest of their lives. The case, of course, captivated the country. And the trial, of course, was held in tandem with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, which had a very different verdict. This one, of course, was highly racial.

The defendants were white. The victim was black. The jury had 12 members on it, 11 of whom were white and one of whom is black. It's very important for us to understand that justice can be done and that sometimes justice is blind as it's supposed to be. And that equal justice under law is not something that Georgia has been known for, but perhaps they're turning that around. This was a just verdict. The evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The defendants concocted a defense that nobody even believed. In fact, in some courts, the judge wouldn't even allow them to offer that defense because they just

made it up out of thin air that they were attempting to perpetrate or to affect a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest requires that the citizen making the arrest actually see the crime that the defendant that they're trying to arrest has committed. Mr. Aubrey didn't commit any crime, and these guys didn't see him commit any crime, and they admitted as much on the witness stand, and therefore their defense should have been thrown out. Nevertheless, the jury rejected it, and in my view, did the right thing. Thanks for listening. I hope this was a helpful explanation. Have a great Thanksgiving weekend.