We pick up (after the holidays) on our quest to show the move toward true justice.  The article below outlines the request and move toward a new trial in the case of Nathan Yabanez.  This case is a perfect example of the need for changes in the handling of juveniles in our court system.  The need to review our accountability and procedures is evident in this case.  The other question raised is whether or not the sentence of “Life Without The Possibility Of Parole” is constitutional.  Is it possible that this sentence can fall under the constitutional language of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”?  I believe so.  Think of it this way:  After suffering a life time of abuse (16 years), repeatedly trying to flee from the abuse AND having the abuse reported to authorities, this young man finds himself face to face with the same situation…….again.  This time he is older, stronger and more hopeless.  He reacts to the situation and kills his mother.  He KNOWSthere is no one to save him from this abuse, he is on his own.  Once the crime is committed, the charges filed and the trial day comes……no one protects him.  When sentencing day comes, no one protects him.  He has already lost the innocence and hope of the first 16 years of his life, now we (the people) decide to take the rest of his life and confirm what he was told all of his life……..he has no value.  There is nothing good in him to save.  He is dispensable.  Cruel?  Absolutely.  Unusual?  Absolutely.  Punishment?  Beyond Comprehension.  Read On……..

Nathan Ybanez deserved a better defense than the one he got

Rocky Mountain News

Published December 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More stories »

Jurors in Nathan Ybanez’s trial 10 years ago for murdering his mother should have been told about the apparent abuse the teenager was subjected to in his home, but they never were.

They should have been informed about reports to social services and how Ybanez allegedly fled his home in Douglas County more than once in fear, but the boy’s lawyer never bothered to let them know.

Now, a decade after Ybanez was sentenced to life in prison without parole, another lawyer is seeking a second chance for him. The attorney is asking for a new trial, permission to appeal the conviction (appeals are almost routine in such cases, but never occurred in this one) or a ruling that Ybanez’s sentence is unconstitutional.

He’s got a strong argument - at least for a new trial or an appeal.

As for the third option, we’d be surprised if a court ruled that life without parole is unconstitutional, even for a 16-year-old whose judgment is far from mature. Such a sentence is no doubt extremely harsh - so harsh, in fact, that the legislature changed the law two years ago, thank goodness, to permit the possibility of parole after 40 years. But claiming that the previous mandatory sentence was actually unconstitutional sounds like a bit of a stretch.

By contrast, the facts seem to support a new trial or an appeal.

“Nathan’s attorney called no witnesses,” attorney Michael Gallagher pointed out in his motion for a retrial. “He presented no evidence. He failed to cross-examine Nathan’s father, who retained him, about the abusive home environment.”

Gallagher argues that Ybanez’s original lawyer found his hands tied. “Simply put,” he said, “Nathan could not be defended by an attorney hired by Nathan’s abusive father because that abuse was the heart of Nathan’s defense.”

Maybe so. Or maybe Craig Truman, Ybanez’s highly-regarded attorney at the time, simply thought he had a better defense strategy - one that failed in the end to achieve its goals. Whatever the reason, the defense ignored the background of abuse - a decision that clearly turned out to be a mistake.

Ybanez’s role in the murder of his mother is not in dispute. The issue is whether the jury would have had second thoughts about sending the teenager to prison for the rest of his life if it had known of abuse he apparently suffered in the home where he committed the crime. We believe the answer might well have been yes.

Very few teenagers are reduced to fleeing their homes in the middle of the night in their underwear for fear of a parent’s rage, yet Ybanez once appeared at a friend’s house in precisely such a state.

And while his home life, however fearful and wretched, is no excuse for the horrible crime that he eventually committed, it does raise the question of whether a conviction for second-degree murder might have been more appropriate under the circumstances.

This entry was posted on 12. January 2009 at 10:31 and is filed under Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print