The movie theater chain Cinemark will no longer pursue the $700,000 in legal fees that four surviving victims of the shooting were to pay after they lost a lawsuit to the theater. Four years after the mass shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, this particular case is finally closed after the remaining plaintiffs reached a deal.

Attorneys for the theater chain on Tuesday said:

All plaintiffs in this matter have now waived appeal of the jury’s verdict and the case can now be deemed completely over. Defendants’ goal has always been to resolve this matter fully and completely without an award of costs of any kind to any party.

Surviving victims initially sued Cinemark for not having sufficient security at its theaters, hoping to raise the bar for other theaters across the country. They brought up the lack of security cameras, guards, and silent alarms on the emergency exit doors.

However, Cinemark’s lawyers concluded the theater could have done nothing to prevent the shooting and that the ultimate responsibility lay with the shooter. Cinemark was entitled to ask the plaintiffs to pay for its litigation costs, a bill that amounted to $699,187.13. But now they’ve reached an agreement, which means that any appeals will be dropped and Cinemark will not demand any legal fees from the victims.

The shooting in 2012 left 12 people dead and over 70 injured, including children and an unborn baby. The assailant James Holmes entered the movie theater during a screening of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises,” dressed in a long black coat, a gas mask, throat protector, and leggings. He carried an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns and allegedly said something like “I am the Joker” before he started his shooting rampage. He also had dyed his hair shock orange.

Holmes’ mother spoke out about the event in May this year and urged people to be more open about mental health issues. She didn’t know her son suffered from schizophrenia until she was in court.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cinemark Drops Claim of $700,000 in Legal Fees from Theater Shooting Survivors appeared first on Law Street.

James Holmes was found guilty of first degree murder last Thursday for the deaths of 12 people in the July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. The insanity defense that his team tried proved unsuccessful, and Holmes will now be sentenced for his crimes.

Holmes faced two counts of first degree murder for each of the twelve victims killed during the shooting. The jury found him guilty on all 24 counts. The jury also found Holmes guilty of attempted murder on all of the 140 counts against him for the 70 people wounded in the shooting. Additionally, he was found guilty of one count of possession or control of an explosive or incendiary. He faced a total of 165 charges, a decision that took the jury 12.5 hours to reach. Now the same jurors are faced with the task of sentencing him to death. This process began yesterday. His attorneys are expected to raise his mental illness again during the penalty portion.

Holmes who had pleaded not guilty by reasons of insanity, but admitted to the killings, showed no reaction as the verdict was announced. His attorneys were pushing for him to be committed to a mental hospital for the rest of his life, while state prosecutors were seeking the death penalty.

Even though Holmes did not take the stand, the jury did hear from him via the 22 hours of recorded psychiatric interviews he had at both the Colorado Mental Health institute in Pueblo and at the jail where he is being held. Two defense psychiatrists testified that Holmes suffered a psychotic break the night of the murders and could not discern between right and wrong, but two-court appointed psychiatrists told the jury the defendant was mentally ill, but not insane. While those sound interchangeable, there’s actually important distinctions under the law.

In pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, James Holmes attempted to do something no accused mass shooter in America has done in more than 20 years–win a case with the insanity defense. Holmes faced long odds for a defense that studies show is raised in only about one percent of all felony cases nationally and successful in only about a quarter of those.

Mass shooters very rarely survive their crimes to face court charges. According to a database of American mass shootings in the last 30 years, suspects in only 19 of 61 mass shootings examined were arrested. Others either committed suicide or were killed during the shooting. Of those 19, only four, including Holmes, pleaded insanity.

The reason for the low success rate is the high bar that laws set for the insanity defense. In Colorado, it is not enough for defendants to be mentally ill. Instead, the law defines insanity as having judgment so impaired by mental illness that the defendant could not tell right from wrong. Given Holmes’ vivid plan, this did not appear to be the case.

The primary factor in determining insanity is the intensive mental health evaluations that a defendant pleading insanity is required to undergo. The judge overseeing the case this week ordered Holmes to be evaluated at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo. After several hours of evaluations, it was determined that his insanity plea was not plausible.

Evidence shows that Holmes’ plan, to some degree, was thought out beforehand. Holmes bought a ticket 12 days before the July 19 showing, and walked into the theater screening of the “The Dark Knight Rises” like any other movie goer. He then walked out through a rear door, which he left propped open. Just after midnight, about 20 minutes after the movie began, he returned wearing a ballistic helmet, a gas mask, black gloves, and protective gear for his legs, throat and groin. A tear gas canister exploded in the theater, then gunfire erupted from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40 caliber handgun. The shooting stopped with Holmes’ arrest outside the theater about seven minutes after the first 911 calls were made to police.

Given that evidence of his plan, it was not hard for members of the jury to believe that Holmes did not meet the bar for the insanity defense. “Look at the evidence, then hold this man accountable,” Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler said. “Reject this claim that he didn’t know right from wrong when he murdered those people and tried to kill the others…that guy was sane beyond a reasonable doubt, and he needs to be held accountable for what he did.”

With the jury certain that Holmes does not fit the bill for the insanity defense, it is not clear where their decision will fall in terms of Holmes receiving the death penalty. As one of the largest mass murderers in American history awaits his fate, we will have to see what the jury ultimately decides.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guilty Verdict for James Holmes: Does the Insanity Defense Ever Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am a huge fan of going to the movies. I was one of those people who would go to the midnight showing of “Harry Potter” or “Transformers” and all the big blockbusters. Although I never had a real passion for the Batman franchise, it sticks with me to this day with these two thoughts: 1. Heath Ledger died too soon, and 2. The “Dark Knight Rises” movie theater massacre in Colorado.

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since movie theater shooter James Holmes walked into that movie and killed 12 people, injuring 70, on July 20, 2012. It’s even harder to believe that he still hasn’t stood trial for his crimes. The new date for jury selection is January 20 — this will be his FIFTH trial date.

Why do they keep postponing a trial that seems so cut and dry? Because they keep wanting to evaluate him and find out if he is sane enough to stand trial and get the death penalty that he so rightly deserves!

There have been 22 hours of interviews to determine if this guy is sane. I would say that all signs point to yes! Not because of my personal belief in the death penalty, but because he knew what he was going to do long before he did it. There was a serious plan in motion. The guy even signed up for dating websites and put in his profile, “Will you visit me in prison?” He knew what he was doing and the prosecutors are planning to use that bit of information to prove he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys acknowledge that he was in fact the shooter but that he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

It is time to realize that James Holmes knew what he was doing and get through the trial.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt P. via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Delaying Movie Theater Shooter’s Trial Date appeared first on Law Street.

Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. What did these shootings have in common? The weapon and the ammunition. Or the types at least. Semi-automatic firearms allow the shooter to fire as fast as his finger can pull the trigger. Pair one of those with oversized ammunition magazines and he is capable of causing unthinkable damage in a matter of minutes. Rachel Maddow highlighted the correlation between the capacity of the ammunition magazine with the duration of the shooting spree and how many people are shot. But New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t seem to understand this correlation in the gun debate — that’s why he vetoed a bill that would limit the size of magazines.

For that, I am furious. Personally, I choose not to remember the names of the monsters who committed these acts because they should not be granted notoriety for their crimes — that would only make their twisted dreams come to fruition. We must pay attention to and deal with the issue at hand: mental illness and access to weaponry. I am no cheerleader for the NRA but I do believe in the right to bear arms. For self protection and even *shudder* hunting, we cannot deny our fellow countrymen (the sane ones) these rights.

Can we compromise?

Both sides are extreme, but I think we could come to an agreeable compromise. But not Gov. Christie, he’s definitely not on board with that. In his eyes we either abolish the Second Amendment entirely, or we continue allowing 15-round magazines to be produced and accessible to the armed public. Last week Christie vetoed a bill that would limit the size of gun magazines to ten rounds. This bill was petitioned by two families who lost children at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Christie avoided them, even when they personally delivered the petition to the governor’s office. He denied them, point blank, period. And this was his weak defense:

So are we saying then that the ten children on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero. Because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six, why not two, why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

This is a joke…right? I mean, if we can’t save five people in the next shooting, we should just let all 15 victims get shot because everyone’s life is equally valuable. Yeah, that totally makes sense. What’s the big deal about five bullets?

Size matters

The heroine of the Tucson story is a woman who bravely tackled the shooter in the moments when he ceased fire. He was equipped with a magazine that held more than double the standard amount of rounds (15). When the shooter paused to refill his Glock with another 33-round magazine, Patricia Maisch, then 61, wrestled the ammo from him while a few men threw the shooter to the ground. The number of victims from that shooting could have been fewer if he had had to reload sooner.

The same goes for the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. That shooter had a drum magazine capable of carrying 100 rounds attached to his AR-15 rifle. Could you imagine how the number of victims from that massacre could have been reduced if he were forced to reload about six times? Christie obviously cannot because that would be favoritism, or something.

Most importantly, I’d like to point out the difference this would have made at the Newtown shooting. The shooter in this case was armed with three different weapons and unfathomable amounts of ammunition, which he carried on his body. This guy came from a family with a long history of love for guns. He grew up with that whole culture and was granted access to guns, despite his Aspergers. The Daily Beast described the frightening amount of weaponry the shooter was armed with that day:

At the school, he emptied three magazines completely, leaving his 26 victims with as many as 11 gunshot wounds. Either because his weapon jammed or because he was overexcited, he ejected three more magazines when they still had 10, 11, and 13 rounds, respectively.

All told, he expended 154 rounds, killing 20 small children and 6 adults. The Bushmaster had one round in the chamber and 14 rounds in the magazine when he took his own life with one of two handguns he carried. A shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds was found in the black Honda he parked in the fire lane at the school entrance.

All that gore occurred in about five minutes. He could not have caused that many deaths in so little time with smaller magazines. How can Christie try to defend his veto with such illogical banter, to the parents of the victims of this shooting? Christie says it’s just a fundamental disagreement, though how his argument could be valid in any reality I do not understand. If the decision were up to you and you could choose between the hypothetical death of 15 children or 10 children, what would you do?

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Eugene Smith via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks to Governor Christie the Gun Debate Just Reached a New Low appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, September 16, 2013, I woke up to news that a mass shooting was taking place at the Washington Navy Yard, ten miles from my house.  It had been nine months since the last devastating mass shooting had taken place, in December 2012, and I came to the realization that I literally was unable to delve into the minutiae of this attack.  My heart couldn’t take the stress.  And for the first time in a long time, I stayed away from the news.  For three days, I neither watched nor read the papers, and knew nothing of the Navy Yard Shooting (because these events always get whittled down to two or three word titles: Columbine. Virginia Tech.  Tucson.  Aurora.  Sandy Hook.  Navy Yard. ________.  (This last example is for the inevitable next shooting that I end up writing about, since our members of Congress respect the NRA’s dollars more than they do our lives).

Today, Thursday September 19, 2013, I felt ignorant for not knowing the facts around this tragedy.  Here is an event that happened in the city where I was born and raised, in an area where many of my friends live, and I did not know the facts.  So today, I sat down and I read them.  Now I’m angry.

Today I learned that the shooter visited two Veterans Affairs Hospitals in two cities seeking help for mental distress.  Each time he sought assistance, he was told that there was not a problem that warranted official concern. For the record, this is absolutely not a condemnation of the mental health professionals who treated the shooter.  They likely followed the protocols to the letter, and were under constraints due to the restrictions Veterans Affairs’ Hospitals typically encounter.  I also learned that the shooter was given a clearance and entered the building using a properly-issued badge.  I learned that the same vetting company cleared both this shooter and the Fort Good gunman.  I learned that he entered the building with a backpack, went into a restroom, came out with a shotgun, and began firing.

I have a suggestion: a uniform procedure for entering government buildings.  There are some government buildings where a the presentation of a badge is the sole security measure.  In others, though, employees and visitors alike go through the same screening precautions.  Indeed, in the summer of 2011, I interned for the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan.  To get into the building, employees had to pass through the metal detector, even with our badges.  Similarly, when entering the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, my bag passed through a security machine every time I entered the building, whether for the first time that day or for lunch. Finally, when I interned for the White House, the security was as tight as one could imagine, no matter what type of badge you possessed.

Was it annoying? Sure.  Realistically, though, it always took less than five minutes.  I don’t know about you, but five minutes is worth my time.  Five minutes is certainly worth my life. If enhanced security is necessary for some government buildings, shouldn’t it be necessary for all?

I also watched a video from the Washington Post where a former Marine told viewers how to react in the event of a mass shooting.  At first I thought, “I will never need to watch this,” but then I realized that it’s probably more beneficial than not.  As a society, we have seen various former safe havens lose their place in our hearts, and come to the realization that we’re not safe anywhere: not in high school, not in college, not in super markets, not in parking lots, not in movie theaters, not in kindergarten, and now not at work.

So I took seven minutes out of my day (less than the time it would take to properly secure all government buildings) and I watched this video.  I felt like I owed it to myself, because every few months we have our sense of safety eroded.  I wanted to learn how to protect myself in the event of danger.

Our workplaces are dangerous.  Our schools are dangerous.  Supermarkets are dangerous and movie theaters are dangers.  What’s left?

Don’t worry, though: the minute news broke that there was a shooter at the Navy Yard, security was increased at the Capitol, and all House and Senate buildings were locked down.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Evanson via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Now It’s the Navy Yard – What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.