Would you Indict?

[pwd72s]

A story in this Morn's paper, a man killing his wife. So, if you were selected for the Grand Jury, would you indict?

Husband shot wife for love, family says
Slaying - Virginia Roberts, who had ALS, had reasons for not taking her own life under Oregon law Thursday, February 07, 2008BRAD SCHMIDT The Oregonian Staff
GRESHAM -- Two months before her death, Virginia Roberts surprised friends and family during what was thought to be merely a holiday party when she renewed wedding vows with her husband, John. Married 12 years, the couple exchanged watches rather than rings.

"These watches symbolize their belief," the minister told those at the Roberts' Gresham home, "that the time they share has no beginning and no end."

Looking back, John Roberts' friends and family say the ceremony Dec. 1 may have indicated that the couple felt Virginia was rapidly losing her battle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

Now those friends and family say love drove John to participate in Virginia's death Saturday. The single gunshot wound to her head was not a cold-blooded attack, they say, but a final act of compassion for a woman suffering from a debilitating disease.

They also say Virginia had her reasons for not using Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows terminally ill patients to end their lives. Virginia did not want to deteriorate until doctors determined she was within six months of death, as required by the physician-assisted suicide law, they said. Nor did she want to take her own life because of her Catholic beliefs.

"There is a story that makes this not just a murder," said Greg Roberts, John Roberts' brother and a former Seattle police detective. "It is my firm belief that this was a pact between the two of them, that she asked him to do this."

Police arrested John Lyle Roberts, 51, on an accusation of murder after receiving a 9-1-1 call at 9:44 a.m. Saturday. Inside the couple's gray, one-story home in the 4100 block of N.E. El Camino Drive, police found Virginia Quiroz Roberts, 51, dead.

Roberts' attorney, Angel Lopez, and Don Rees, a Multnomah County senior deputy district attorney prosecuting the case, declined to comment. Gresham police Capt. Tim Gerkman also declined to discuss specifics of the investigation, which will be reviewed by a grand jury Friday.

According to state Death With Dignity statistics, ALS is second to cancer as the most common illness listed by those who ended their lives between 1998 and 2006. Twenty-three of the 292 Oregonians who died through the program had ALS.

ALS, named for the New York Yankees All-Star who succumbed to it in 1941, eliminates the ability to control muscle movements, eventually leading to paralysis and death. Dr. Jau-Shin Lou, director of the ALS Center of Oregon at Oregon Health & Science University, estimates there are 40 to 60 new diagnoses statewide each year. The average survival time: two to five years.

John and Virginia Roberts' love began at a bar in California, family members say. A Cascade Locks native, he worked as a logistics manager for various companies, improving business models and then moving on. She moved to the U.S. without knowing English. "Vicki," as she was sometimes known, found work in bars and in retail. Both had children from previous relationships. They fell for each other and eloped.


"100 percent his match"


Sarah Roberts, John Roberts' oldest daughter from a previous marriage, said she believes her dad knew what Virginia wanted him to do, even if it meant ending her life, even if it meant he'd go to jail.

"Vicki was 100 percent his match," she said. "He would do anything for her."

Following that December ceremony, Virginia Roberts' condition worsened, family members say. She lost weight and started sorting her belongings. Greg Roberts said that one day his brother hinted that Virginia had asked for help in her death.

Virginia prided herself on her appearance, said Teresa Cavazos, the family friend who conducted the December ceremony. She kept a clean house, always looked immaculate and loved shopping. But the disease began turning one of Roberts' hands inward and she lost the use of two of her fingers, Cavazos said.

"She couldn't even comb her hair anymore," Cavazos said. "She was a very proud woman, and it was very, very difficult for her."

The night before her death, Cavazos said she spoke with Virginia on the phone for longer than normal. In retrospect, the conversation was haunting, Cavazos said.

Virginia likened her love with John to Romeo and Juliet. And she mentioned that being shot wouldn't be a bad way to die.

"You're here one second and in heaven the next," Cavazos recalled Roberts saying.

"I thought, what a weird thing to say."

Brad Schmidt, 503-294-5940; bradschmidt@news.oregonian.com

[frogger]

I couldn't bring myself to impartially sit on that jury.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Wow, that's a tough one. I'm not sure I agree with the method, but I don't know that I could put the husband in jail either. Of course, if the story described is what really happened.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

She couldn't have found ONE doctor to give her the requisite "six months" in order to invoke the "Death with Dignity" act?

Based on the LAW (motive, opportunity, etc.) I would probably have to indict him. If I were on the jury, I would almost certainly acquit.

[MRM]

Doesn't matter. Consent is no defense to murder. A guy in Minnesota tried that defense and got convicted of a lesser degree of murder. But a closer look at the case suggested his "mercy" killing wasn't so much mercy and was just him acting on his own in his own selfish interest. That's part of the problem with allowing assisted suicide. Who decides who lives and who dies and who is to know that the one doing the killing really had the consent of the one who died?

He should be convicted. His excuse is a question of mitigation, not innocence. He can tell his story to the judge to ask for a lighter sentence.

[Rick Lee]

I would not vote to indict, but if he got it and I were on the jury, I certainly vote to acquit. No punishment could ever rival that of seeing your spouse deteriorate with ALS and then actually ending her life yourself. That husband is not the kind of guy who's gonna commit crimes if he's not locked up. It's terrible that we can legally give our pets more dignified deaths than we can our loved ones. If I were in that woman's state, I'd end my own life before I became incapable of doing so. I wouldn't want anyone else to suffer anything worse than my loss. No reason to bankrupt this man with legal costs or even risk giving him a permanent felony conviction record.

[legion]

Good call Rick.

I would neither indict nor vote guilty in a trial. I would consider it as a form a jury nullification of an inadequate law.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

...It's terrible that we can legally give our pets more dignified deaths than we can our loved ones....

Ain't that the truth! "IF" everything is true about the circumstances, I could not find someone guilty (despite what the laws state), so therefore, I assume that I would be excused.

[Rick Lee]

The old jury nullification call.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

The old jury nullification call.

Perhaps our last (and best) defense against tyranny.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Moses

Perhaps our last (and best) defense against tyranny.

Lord knows the 2nd Amendment isn't holding up so well...

[Jeff Higgins]

I think a lot of people (particularly those working within it) lose sight of the function of our legal system. It is there to serve the best interests of We, the People. It has, unfortunately (in many cases) deteriorated into a system that only serves itself. The professional and career aspirations of those public servants working for us within that system often come ahead of the public interest. I simply cannot see how prosecuting this man will serve the public interest. He should not be indicted.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I think a lot of people (particularly those working within it) lose sight of the function of our legal system. It is there to serve the best interests of We, the People. It has, unfortunately (in many cases) deteriorated into a system that only serves itself. The professional and career aspirations of those public servants working for us within that system often come ahead of the public interest. I simply cannot see how prosecuting this man will serve the public interest. He should not be indicted.

And that's exactly why I believe a jury has three distinct duties;

1) Decide guilt or innocence.
2) Determine if the law is reasonable.
3) Determine if the law was applied appropriately.

[Burnin' oil]

The only "facts" in the story are that the wife had ALS and the husband shot her. The rest is conjecture. Based on those facts, I would indict and convict.

And allowing a jury to decide which laws should be enforced and when is absolutely unworkable.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

The only "facts" in the story are that the wife had ALS and the husband shot her. The rest is conjecture. Based on those facts, I would indict and convict.

And allowing a jury to decide which laws should be enforced and when is absolutely unworkable.

Actually, it is imperitive that a jury be not just allowed to do so, but be mandated to do so. It is our last line of defense against over reaching, over zealous government. Much has been written about a jury's duty to not only consider guilt under the law, but the veracity of the law. Moses is spot on.

Originally Posted by Moses

And that's exactly why I believe a jury has three distinct duties;

1) Decide guilt or innocence.
2) Determine if the law is reasonable.
3) Determine if the law was applied appropriately.

[Rick Lee]

If it weren't for jury nullification, mandatory minimums would mean insane prison sentences for some relatively minor crimes, regardless of circumstances. I understand why mand. minimums exist and I understand why we probably won't ever have a national euthanasia law. But just because some things are politically impossible to get written into law, does not make them any more or less just.

[Rot 911]

If I had advanced ALS I could only pray my wife had the courage to do what this woman's husband did.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

And allowing a jury to decide which laws should be enforced and when is absolutely unworkable.

No. It's a critical protection against tyranny.

Before the civil war, it was illegal to harbor run away slaves in the border states. White members of the underground railroad were routinely arrested, tried and found NOT GUILTY, even though the evidence was overwhelming.

What you call "jury nullification" is a powerful tool to protect us against an overzealous prosecutor or legislative buffoonery.

[Burnin' oil]

Whitey liked de facto nullification a few years ago

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Moses

legislative buffoonery.

No shortage of that nowadays.