Alveda King points out the horrid irony in this San Antonio case wherein a teenager is accused of burglarizing the home of a neighborhood restaurateur and brutally killing her with an arrow -- all because he wanted $300 to pay an abortionist to kill his girlfriend's baby.
The murderer, openly and without duress, confessed to the crime and to the motive.
But sleazy lawyers are trying to get him off on absurd technicalities.
For instance, the defense attorneys want the court to 1) throw out the murderer's statement about the abortion motive (along with other statements he made to police); 2) throw out evidence obtained from a search of the man's pockets (a key belonging to the victim, two of her credit cards and a tube of her hair gel) because there wasn't cause to search him in the first place; 3) throw out the confession because the detective "glossed over" the man's Miranda rights; 4) throw out other evidence obtained from the murderer because he was "illegally intimidated" by the arrest in which officers knocked on the door to his parents' house with a battering ram and handcuffed him while he still was in bed; 5) throw out other evidence obtained from the murderer because he was questioned "with his hair disheveled and wearing only basketball shorts."
And they call this the justice system?
