Robert Keeler and Charge With Murder - Research Paper Example

RUNNING HEAD: Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal 3D 619 (1970) Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal 3D 619 (1970) BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal 3D 619 (1970) Factual Background of Case and Party Histories Teresa Keeler filed for divorce from her husband, Robert Keeler, in September of 1968. Mrs. Keeler was granted custody of her two children, then ages 12 and 13 where she resided periodically with her lover Ernest Vogt in Stockton. She had only recently met Mr. Vogt earlier in the summer of 1968, completely unbeknownst to her husband. Due to a marital situation involving divorce proceedings and an extra-marital affair, Teresa Keeler became impregnated by her lover, Ernest Vogt. After 16 years of marriage, her divorce was granted. In retaliation, her husband Robert Keeler approached his wife and began to threaten her. He insisted, upon viewing her pregnant form, the he would “stomp it out of you”, then pushing her against the car and driving his knee sharply into her abdomen (New York State Bar Association, 2010, p.623). After striking his wife in the face several times, she eventually fainted. Upon awaking, Robert Keeler had left the scene of the crime. Her first move was to return to Stockton where she approached the police, who summoned medical assistance. She was discovered to have significant facial injuries and extensive bruises on her abdomen (loislaw.com, 2010). Upon the advice of medical practitioners, a C-section was performed in which the fetus was discovered to have a fractured skull and was delivered stillborn. Under Penal Code § 187, Robert Keeler was charged with murder as it was determined that the damage caused to the fetus could only have been sustained through external force. Legal Ruling The Supreme Court of Amador County ruled that Robert Keeler could not be held on murder charges or convicted of the crime. The judge in the case cited Penal Code 187 that provides “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice afterthought” (loislaw.com, 2010, p.2). At this time, in 1970, most of the laws pertaining to murder and identifying what constitutes a human being was related to very old common law from the 1850s. There were no precedents set that clearly indicated fetus rights and such rights in relation to classification as a human being. This common law involved protections for individuals who had been born alive, and Teresa Keeler’s child had been stillborn. The judge had no legal viability by which to uphold murder charges. The judge further ruled that citing other relevant laws other than those spelled out in Penal Code 187 would deny Mr. Keeler due process afforded him by law (loislaw.com). Though Robert Keeler’s domestic assault charges were upheld, there were absolutely no judicial grounds on which to consider murder in the process of trial. Effect of the Case on the Criminal Justice System Much like Roe v. Wade from the 1970s that has acted as the legal precedent on which Federal laws consider abortion, Keeler v. Superior Court launched new legislative efforts by which to support in utero rights. In the late 1970s, The American Convention on Human Rights spelled out what rights should be respected at the international level, as a means to gain support and public awareness. Article 4 from the charter states “every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception” (cidh.org, 2010, p.2). Though the efforts of this convention did not have legal authority in the United States, it started a revolution in the criminal justice system to ensure fetus rights. The California Penal Code, section 6 states that the People’s argument does not stand up to scientific scrutiny regarding whether a fetus represents a conscious human life. It was determined that such decisions should be left up to the state’s legislature, and not the court system, to change pre-existing definitions that had allowed Keeler to go free. Because this had become a civil concern in multiple areas of society, legislature began the process of clearly defining in utero rights and creating law to supersede the 1850s common law definitions. The efforts undertaken to redefine what constitutes a human being have had considerable impact on state level recognition of feticide. In Idaho, what is referred to as Noah’s Law was created after a 16-year-old woman suffered an assault that left her child stillborn (Murphy, 2010). This prompted similar legislative action at the state level in Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico and Virginia so that prison sentences would be increased for individuals who terminate pregnancies or cause miscarriages through violent action (Murphy). Keeler v. Superior Court not only changed the definition of murder and the status of being a human being under law, it brought considerable domestic and international attention and support for redefinition. Today, the majority of states have clearly defined laws produced in corresponding legislatures that isolate fetus rights and impose murder charges on those who destroy maliciously or negligently through other assaults. The Present State of the Case Keeler v. Superior Court, in most cases, does not have the ability to act as a legal precedent in order to drop charges brought against similar fetus destruction cases. Even California has used its legislative branch to define fetal rights as a human being even when in utero. The amended Penal Code 187 now clearly indicates that a fetus is protected under the same rights as those children born living. The law in California now states that there is no need for mental examination to determine malicious intention so long as there is ample evidence that an act to cause harm to the host (mother) occurred as a product of express or implied malice (leginfo.ca.gov, 2009). In virtually all states, there are laws that identify fetal rights in utero and these supersede common laws established under British common law models. Even though Keeler did not receive penalties for his actions, there is no evidence where Keeler v. Superior Court has been called forward as a precedent to spare an assault perpetrator from being tried for murder. This old case only reminds the legal system and the public of the importance of spelling out human rights in legal definition. It would be likely that Keeler v. Superior Court could only be used as a precedent in very mitigating circumstances. In North Carolina, there is no law currently that recognizes the killing of an unborn child as homicide (Duke Law Journal, 2009). A woman by the name of Jenna Nielsen was murdered during her eighth month of pregnancy in North Carolina, thus her unborn child died soon after. Her murderer was not charged for the death of the fetus, even though there were federal laws in place defining human rights in utero. Keeler v. Superior Court created division in the country at the state and federal level, despite any public opinion. Federal laws were created by Congress which recognizes in utero rights in similar proportion to living, breathing human beings. In fact, federal law is concise in its definition, stemming back to 2004 with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, describing even the state of the umbilical cord and respiratory assessment of the living newborn. Congress was concerned about enactment of this Act as some members believed it would violate the mothers’ rights related to abortion. These rights are recognized by Roe v. Wade and there was concern that it would be misinterpreted by the judicial system to include murder charges for women in some cases. However, despite these progressive changes at the federal and state levels, Keeler v. Superior Court is essentially a useless case study, providing only a diagram of how progressive common law redefinitions have become. It has been replaced more than once at multiple levels of law and can no longer be used as a reference in any case involving in utero harm from an external assaulter. The case acts only as an informational study for the legal system and would not have the power of judicial precedent today. Public Reaction to the Keeler Case Decision “The public was outraged” (thefreelibrary.com, 2010). Immediately after dismissing the charges against Keeler, the California legislature went about the process of adding fetus rights to existing the existing Penal Code 187. The decision stirred up national controversy from concerned public citizens prior to other landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade. Up until this time, there had been no previous incident of fetal death and charges brought against perpetrators in the legal system, therefore it redefined society’s view of human rights and in utero rights. This was a time period where many states were still acting against very old common law principles and during a time where mass media was essentially in its infancy. California citizens’ outrage eventually spread across the United States as advocates for change began to support legislative actions to redefine feticide laws. However, it does not seem that the media or public protests made any significant headway toward changing old laws on feticide until well into the 1990s and beyond. Most of the changes to these laws at the state and federal level were not enacted until after this time period after more victims of similar injuries were reported. Of course, by this time, media outlets were mass marketed and news footage from international locations was readily available online and via other mediums. In many ways, the evolution of Roe v. Wade and its decades-old controversies associated along with evolving television, web-based and print media finally brought the issue into the broader social consciousness. The outrage caused by the Keeler case can be witnessed in the new state-level legal definitions of what constitutes a human being and the laws supporting in utero rights. Even though not all states recognize this distinction, even those with very strong influence of old common law principles have redefined the punishment system to include additional prison time for those who cause miscarriages through violent action. It is often media and public outrage and protest that bring about these changes, something not common in the 1970s at the human rights level. Conclusion Teresa and Robert Keeler were a classic case of domestic violence with terrible consequences. History does not tell much of their life stories other than events as they occurred in 1968 at the time of divorce and the grounds that caused her husband’s jealous rage. Keeler v. Superior Court reminds us of how progressive the legal system has become in the last four decades but should not be considered a useful law for reference in practice. References Murphy, Kathleen. (2010). “Fetal homicide laws stir abortion debate”. Stateline. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15234 Cidh.org. (2010). “American Convention on Human Rights”, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Retrieved November 29, 2010 from http://www.cidh.org/basicos/english/basic3.American%20convention.htm Duke Law Journal. (2009). “Abandonment and reconciliation: Addressing political and common law objections to fetal homicide laws”. 58(6), pp.1107-1136. Leginfo.ca.gov. (2009). “California Codes – Penal Codes Section 187-199”. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=31150315264+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Loislaw.com. (2010). “Keeler v. Superior Court 2 Cal 3D 619 (1970)”. New York State Bar Association. Retrieved November 29, 2010 from http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=CACASE&cite=87+Cal.Rptr.+481 New York State Bar Association. (2010). “California Supreme Court Reports”. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=CACASE&cite=87+Cal.Rptr.+481 Thefreelibrary.com. (2010). “Conner Peterson, An Unborn Victim of Violence, and the California Law”. Retrieved November 29, 2010 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Conner+Peterson%2c+An+Unborn+Victim+of+Violence%2c+and+the+California+Law.-a0101694776 Read More