Hours after the race was over, the body of 48-year-old Adan Fabian Perez was discovered some 150 yards away from the new champion, “I’ll Have Another.”  Authorities have confirmed they are investigating the death as a homicide, but so far have not found any connections to the race itself. Louisville Police Lt. Barry Wilkerson said they had found evidence of several altercations in that area of Churchill Downs on Saturday night, and police are trying to determine if Perez’s death is related.

Now, not to get too personal here, but if you happen to know me, you probably know that this story strikes a chord with me because horses used to be my LIFE!  I have showed horses on the very grounds where this went down, and I hate to think of it as anything but the landscape of many beautiful memories.  Anyway, back to the point.

The victim worked as a horse groomer and was living in the dorms on the grounds of Churchill Downs at the time of his death.  According to the Associated Press, “about 200 people live at Churchill Downs at any given time — either in dormitories on the edge of the property or in small apartments above some of the barns themselves.”  Adan Fabian Perez’s body was discovered by his 19-year-old son, Wilson Deejesus Fabian Perez, who also works at the park.  An autopsy is scheduled for today.

Sadly, this is not the first time that Churchill Downs has been the unsuspected resting place of equestrian participants, including just last year when the body of jockey Michael Baze was found near the track.  His death was ruled an accidental overdose.

Stay tuned for updates on the Deadly Derby Day Drama!

If you’ve been exposed to any form of media lately, the name Trayvon Martin has no doubt entered your ear space…over and over and over again. Dear Dead Horse – you’ve been beaten. But, the issue of “stand your ground” law is nonetheless worth discussing.

In Florida…

Florida Penal Code 776.012 Provides:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

In other words, if you have a reasonable belief that an attacker is going to kill you or cause you great bodily harm (or do the same to another person), you may be justified in killing that person to prevent the attack. The key issue in pursuing this kind of defense is the reasonableness of the belief that you are in imminent risk of being killed or seriously injured. In the Trayvon Martin case, there are several factors to consider:

1. Physical Ability: There is no requirement that the attacker have the actual ability to carry out the killing, only that the accused had a reasonable belief in the attacker’s ability to do so.

2. Physical Stature: For Trayvon Martin’s case, it is hard to imagine a grown man feeling his life was threatened by an unarmed teenage boy. But according to police records, the shooter (George Zimmerman) is listed as being 6’ tall, 170lbs, and the victim (Trayvon Martin) as 6’ tall, 160lbs., leaving only a 10-pound difference between the two. So as far as physicality is concerned, it’s certainly possible that Zimmerman’s fear for his life was reasonable.

3. Lawful Use of Firearm: It weighs heavily against Zimmerman’s defense that Trayvon was unarmed. Zimmerman must also have been acting lawfully in carrying his gun, either concealed or openly, under Florida state law.

4. Provocation: Under Florida law, there are other restrictions on the right to use deadly force in self-defense, including section 776.041, which precludes the defense in situations where the shooter is the initial aggressor unless: (1) the shooter indicates his/her withdrawal from the confrontation & the other person persists; OR (2) the shooter first exhausts all other ways of escaping the confrontation, but the use of force is so strong that he/she has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great physical harm. **This is going to be the issue in the Trayvon Martin case.**

5. Criminal History: One of the newer developments in the Trayvon Martin case is that he had a prior juvenile arrest for assault, indicating his violent tendencies. This fact cannot be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of Zimmerman’s fear, however, unless the defense can also prove that Zimmerman was aware of Trayvon’s history at the time of the confrontation. Problem for the defense is, the court of public opinion will consider this “evidence” regardless of its admissibility in court.

My 2 Cents

First and foremost, I am surprised that there haven’t been any criminal charges filed against George Zimmerman, especially considering the public uproar. Zimmerman may in fact be able to assert self-defense, but that’s not for the police to decide. I think the criminal justice system is better designed to make that determination, and a jury of his peers should be the ones who review Zimmerman’s actions.

I’ll stop there for now, but will keep you posted on the developments of the Trayvon Martin case and Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.

BREAKING NEWS: Just around the corner from yours truly, in the rolling Hollywood Hills, producer and creator of Soul Train, Don Cornelius, sustained a gunshot wound to the head earlier this morning.  He was transferred to Cedar Sinai, but later died from his injuries.  According to LA Times, there are "signs of foul play," while ABC is reporting it as an "apparent suicide."  Cornelius was 75 years old.

Once again I have come upon a story from my home state of Indiana and I have to pass on the ridiculousness. (I know I'm a nerd, but I often check out a blog site called "Legally Weird," and I continue to see my Hoosier Heartland pop up in embarrassing ways.)

Police arrested a 39-year-old man in Lafayette, Indiana, (home of "pee-u Purdue") on suspicion of carjacking and claim that upon arrest, he threatened to "hunt them down and eat them, their dogs and their entire families." !!!

According to police, Paul Brock, the accused, jumped into a running and unlocked car at a gas station and made off with it. (I know that might sound crazy to my west coast readers, who might think the owner deserved it! But the owner "warming up" his car, a common practice when it's freezing cojones outside.) When police caught up with Brock, they claim he kicked a police dog in the head twice and made the above cannibalistic forewarnings. Brock now faces two counts of carjacking, resisting arrest, driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, striking a law enforcement animal and intimidation (for the threats against the police, families...and their little dogs too!), a Class D Felony in the State of Indiana.

Come on Hoosiers, I expect more from you!

The term "insanity" is often thrown around in the news and other sources that purport to legally analyze the popular crime stories of the day. In California, insanity is recognized, but it has a very specific standard in order for one to successfully invoke it as a defense.

Most crimes have a mens rea requirement, meaning that a defendant must have the mental state required (usually by statute) in order to be found guilty of that particular crime. An insanity defense attacks the notion that the defendant has the required mens rea. People are presumed sane when they are charged with a crime. If you his decide to use an insanity defense, you have the burden of persuasion, which means that you must convince the jury that you are in fact insane.

Rationales for the Insanity Defense

Many people argue that the insanity defense is necessary because one who commits a crime while insane is not morally responsible. Others note that traditional punishments would be ineffective against those who commit a crime while insane. This is why those who are deemed to be insane are often admitted to facilities that will hold them, rendering them incapable of committing another crime, and also provide treatment if it is appropriate.

California's Standard for Insanity

In California, the standard for insanity is measured under the "M'Naghten Test." In order to satisfy the requirements under M'Naghten, an accused must have been unable to understand the nature of his or her actions, and unable to distinguish right from wrong. So, someone who suffers from an anxiety disorder or depression is not protected by the insanity defense because emotional disturbance does not necessarily mean that a person's moral center is off. In other words, a person who goes out and commits homicide because they think they are being attacked by a monster probably would be able to invoke the defense, but one who commits homicide because they are depressed over a recent break-up or anxious over a job loss would not. Also, being intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance would not qualify under the insanity defense. For more information on the insanity defense, see California Penal Code § 25.

7/11 Stick-Up in We-Ho

In 2000, a 7-11 in West Los Angeles was robbed at gunpoint, allegedly by the defendant, Charles Phillips. (People v. Phillips (2000) 83 Cal. App.4th 170.) Phillips' counsel put forward the defense insanity after presenting evidence from a psychologist who testified that Phillips' IQ level was 69, and therefore was classified as mentally retarded. He had poor impulse control and was identified as a follower. Phillips, however, knew what he was doing was wrong, and that alone was enough to render him unable to use the insanity defense. The court held that the "test for idiocy is the same as that for insanity."