Dixie Shanahan's been convicted of second degree murder. Of course, her attorney indicates he'll appeal. But the grounds he cites are unusual to say the least:



"The jury, under Iowa law, was not told what penalties were of the six verdicts they considered. Steensland said that was unfair.



"I think the law let them (the jury) down," Steensland said."



In Iowa we have a long-standing rule that the jury is not informed of the penalties for different counts charged. This is because criminal law is statutory and specific: each criminal statute has certain elements that must be proved in order for the State to show a crime has been committed. If any of the elements are missing, no crime. The focus during trial is on these elements. Like a jigsaw puzzle, jurors match up the elements of each crime to the evidence and see which crime "fits." Only after deciding whether a crime has been committed do we enter the penalty phase of the prosecution. Mr. Steensland wants to turn the system on its head, and for very good reason. If the jurors are told the penalties up front, defense counsel could encourage them to do results-oriented deliberation: deciding up front how much time they want to give a defendant, figuring out which crime will give them that result, and straining the facts to fit the crime they want, whether that's actually the one committed or not. In this case, that would favor the defense. But how about when it favors the prosecution? In a very aggregious case in which no "high level" crime was committed, the jury could strain the facts the other way in order to inflict the punishment it desires.



Its my old rule for analysis of political issues: always come up with the worst case scenario and put the shoe on the other foot. If you still think it's a good idea, you've got a decent principle. If not, rethink it. I think the courts won't buy this one.