Questioning Transphobia

The following verdicts were returned:

• Count 1: First degree murder – guilty
• Count 2: Bias motivated crime – guilty
• Count 3: Aggravated motor vehicle theft (1st degree) – guilty
• Count 4: ID theft – guilty

Sentencing for the first count: mandatory life without parole.
Sentencing on the remaining three counts will take place on May 8th at 3PM MST.

—————

(Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

—————

This morning’s session has focused on Judge Kopcow’s instructions to the jury, and a brief summing up of the cases for the defense, and for the prosecution.

Wednesday morning, April 22

• Judge Kopcow read the jury instructions to the jury
• Instruction 6 related to circumstantial evidence
• Instruction 14 related to culpability due to mental state. (Autumn Sandeen noted: This will come into play esp. with the bias crime charge – via http://twitter.com/justiceforangie)
• Instruction 15 covered elements for the count of first degree murder (F1 felony)
• Instruction 16 – on the four lesser included homicide charges
• Instruction 17 discussed second degree murder (F2 and F3 felonies). An F2 felony would be premeditated, whereas an F3 felony would apply if the jury decided that Angie had been murdered in the “heat of passion” – the trans panic defense
• Instruction 18 – the conditions required to meet the definition of bias motivated crime
• Instruction 20 – identity theft
• Instruction 21 concerned vehicle theft (Andrade was charged with stealing Angie’s PT Cruiser)
• Instruction 22 defined other terms specific to the trial and included “sexual orientation” – a catchall term which includes “transgender status”
• Prosecution’s closing statement. DA Rob Miller said that the case is about intent – Andrade’s intent – and added that some elements indicated a bias motivated crime, and others described first degree murder. DA Miller believed that neither manslaughter nor criminally negligent homicide would be appropriate verdicts.
   
  DA Miller believed that Angie Zapata was not murdered in the heat of the moment, and that Andrade had enough time to do what a reasonable person would have done, namely, to walk away and get out of that situation. Andrade should be found guilty on all charges.
• Annette Kundelius, the Defense Attorney, presented the closing argument, saying that what happened was nothing to do with sexual orientation (ie Angie’s gender identity) but because Andrade had been deceived and therefore did not commit a felony (F1, F2 or F3). Finding out that Angie had male genitalia was “sufficient provocation” (to commit manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide) and Andrade “just reacted”
• DA Miller’s rebuttal: An attack to the head and face with multiple blows indicates intent, not deception – “Is she supposed to wear a sign that she’s transgender?”
• Judge Kopcow issued Instruction 24 on the process of jury deliberation and how to complete the paperwork for the verdict
• The jury retired to deliberate

The possible convictions are: 1st degree murder; 2nd degree murder; 2nd degree murder/heat of passion/manslaughter; criminally negligent homicide.

Andrade has three prior felony convictions, with another two pending (for rioting in jail, and misdemeanor assault), spanning 12 years.

Angie Zapata’s family will issue a formal statement half-an-hour after the verdict is made known.

—————

(Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

Over at Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen has an interesting post – What Does “Justice For Angie” Mean? – about the possible sentences that could be handed down to Allen Andrade should he be found guilty of Angie Zapata’s murder. I recommend reading the whole article – link here – which arose after a lengthy discussion that Autumn had with Beth Karas (Senior Reporter with Court TV and formerly an assistant district attorney in New York City). Ms Karas explained ‘what the prosecutor is aiming for, what the defense is aiming for, and the punishments would be for the for just the murder change’.

All of which is an absorbing read of itself, but I was interested to note a distinction that Autumn draws, between ‘justice for Angie’ and ‘justice for the broader community’:

If we’re looking for justice for Angie, having her admitted killer spend the rest of his natural life in prison would be justice for her and her family — and that’s according to Angie’s family. [...]

If we’re looking for justice for the broader community; however, then one of the other charges we haven’t talked about yet — the bias motivated charge — becomes important.

The sentence that Autumn refers to as being justice in the eyes of Angie’s family is what’s termed an F1 sentence – life without for parole for first degree murder. However, there are two lesser felony charges, F2 and F3, which – depending on whether the habitual offender enhancement is included – could range from 10 years to 96 years.

As Autumn notes:

[...] if Colorado is unsuccessful in convincing a jury that this was a bias motivated hate crime against transgender people, many trans people will be wondering what set of facts will convince a Colorado jury that a bias motivated crime against a trans person was committed against a trans person specifically because the killed person was trans.

In other words, justice for Angie may not necessarily equate to justice for the trans community – and there could conceivably be significant longer-term repercussions for the trans community if a conviction excludes the bias motivated crime count:

If there isn’t a hate crime conviction in this case, the broader communities are going to have to rethink how hate crime laws are written so that “gay panic” and “trans panic” strategies put forward by defense attornys don’t nulify the intent of the hate crime laws.

—————

Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

I’ve been trying to gain a better understanding of the status of hate crimes laws in the US and I hope this brief overview may be useful to others. It goes without saying that, although I’ve put this post together in good faith, I do not claim that it is definitive. I hope that it’s at least basically accurate, however if I’ve made any errors or omissions, please feel free to correct me in comments and I will amend the post accordingly.

As we know, the Angie Zapata murder trial marks the first time that hate crime charges have been included in the prosecution of a defendant accused of murdering a transgender victim.

To start with a more general definition of a hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime):

Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, “A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. Measures to add perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list have been proposed, but failed.

(wikipedia)

There has been a federal hate crime law since 1969, however, as the above quote makes clear, its application is limited – “a federally protected activity” means things like voting, or going to school- and it excludes crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

In an attempt to close these legal loopholes, the Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, or LLEHCPA) was put to, and passed by, the House of Representatives in 2007. Similar legislation was passed in the Senate in the same year but failed to proceed when President Bush indicated he would veto the legislation if it reached his desk

Additionally:

The LLEHCPA has been introduced in substantially similar form in each Congress since the 105th Congress in 1999, but has never made it into law. The 2007 bill expands on the earlier versions (originally called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act) by including transgender provisions and making it explicit that the law should not be interpreted to restrict people’s freedom of speech or association.

(wikipedia)

As regards the situation in Colorado:

In 1988, Colorado became the first state in the United States to have a hate crimes law. Although an important first step, “The Ethnic Intimidation Act” included limited protections. In 2005, the state legislature amended the law – renamed it a “Bias Motivated Crime” — and added sexual orientation and mental and physical disability as protections. The term “sexual orientation” is specifically defined in the law to include “transgender status.” Therefore, the law also provides protection for gender identity and expression.

(angiezapata.com)

The significance of this law in the Angie Zapata murder trial is that it’s the first time that Colorado’s gender identity-inclusive hate crimes statute – and in fact any state’s hate crimes law — has been applied in the investigation and prosecution of an anti-transgender murder case.

—————

Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

This story in the Greeley Tribune makes my blood boil.  Not, surprisingly, the coverage itself, but the defense tactics in the Angie Zapata trial:

The first few times, it almost seemed like the public defenders were misspeaking.

But then, those watching the murder trial of Allen Andrade started muttering under their breaths. Witnesses on the stand continued to correct the attorneys questioning them.

Family members and friends echoed repeatedly, “my sister,” “Angie,” one by one on the stand Friday as public defenders Annette Kundelius and Brad Martin questioned them about “Justin.”

Ok, so got that straight?  The defense is ungendering Angie Zapata by using a male name and pronouns.  Hammering home that she had a “male” body.  That she was “really a man.”

Well, what’s the difference, some more clueless cissexual people might wonder?  First, this is a matter of respect.  Angie lived and died as a woman.  Her family and friends were adamant about that, even in the face of persistent ungendering.  Of course, this is a criminal trial, not generally regarded as a place for respect.  But neither is it supposed to be a place for poorly reasoned argument.  Make no mistake, this is a cheap, dirty tactic.

More importantly than respect, this sets up an impossible standard for trans people to meet.  Even if we out ourselves–as Angie Zapata clearly did–we are nevertheless “proved” to have been lying.  It means that living her life as a woman, having the name of Angie, of itself constitutes an act of deception.  In the trial’s mini-opening statements, the defense said:

“This case is not about judgment of a lifestyle,” Martin told the jury. “It’s not about whether Justin [sic] Zapata’s lifestyle was right or wrong. It’s about a deception and a reaction to that deception. … Justin’s Moco Space profile was that of a female, not of a transgender, and it certainly wasn’t that of a man.”

This article here lays out the reasoning in its title “Andrade: Stunned Victim or Homophobe.” Here, Andrade is improbably conjured as the VICTIM, not the woman he brutally bashed to death.  Because obviously, a trans panic “victim” couldn’t simply walk away, couldn’t simply have been mistaken, couldn’t go “nope, sorry, not for me.”  No, he’s so victimised–traumatised–by Angie’s sheer existence as an embodied trans woman with a penis, that he was forced to kill her.  No.  Sorry.  That’s bullshit, and illogical bullshit at that.

Martin’s defense disclaimer aside, this quite clearly is a judgment about “lifestyle” and it is about painting transgendered women as deceptive, and it is about a form of simplistic cissexism that forever precludes trans women from being legitimately female.  The notion that Angie’s profile was truthful needs is one that I think a jury needs to be aware of.  Because she was a woman, one accepted and loved by family and friends. 

Quite obviously, this clears the way for the inevitable “trans panic” defense, a form of victim blaming that only appears to have legal credibility when applied to trans people.  So yes, I realise it is the defense’s job to cast doubt onto every piece of evidence that the prosecution raises, and even to attack the credibility of the victim and any material witnesses.  But this is not doing that.  It does not raise the question of whether Angie was of good character or not–it suggests from the start that she never could have been.  This is pandering to the worst in cissexist biases, and painting transness of itself as deserving of death.

This is hate speech legitimating hate violence, pure and simple.

h/t to Helen

On Tuesday (April 14), the jury selection begins in connection with the trial of Allen Andrade for the first-degree murder of Angie Zapata last July. Last Wednesday, a coalition of 50 civil rights and anti-violence groups launched a public information campaign online and in 22 Colorado newspapers. (Click the thumbnail image for full-size PDF)

The ads urge readers to “light a candle for Angie,” the 18-year-old Greeley resident found beaten to death last summer in her apartment, and to support passage of legislation that would add sexual orientation to federal hate-crime law. The trial of Allen Andrade, 32, will be the first time in the nation that hate-crime charges will be included in the prosecution of a defendant accused of murdering a transgender victim.

(Via the Colorado Independent)

Although the trial is scheduled to last for two weeks, Jennifer Finch, spokeswoman for Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, has said that the jury selection process could delay matters:

“We are concerned because of all the publicity the case has received, including the ad,” Finch said. “It could be that much longer to seat a panel.”

(Via the Denver Post)

However, Mindy Barton, legal director for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado said that the ads did not run in newspapers where a possible juror would live, and added that potential jurors in Weld County still could have read newspaper accounts or television reports on the murder over the past year.

From the Colorado Independent:

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck included hate-crime charges among a raft of other felony counts filed against Andrade, including first-degree murder, automobile theft and identity theft. In December, Buck added habitual criminal charges to the prosecution’s arsenal, which could quadruple any sentence handed down by the jury based on Andrade’s three prior felony convictions for contraband possession, theft and lying to a pawnbroker. Buck said he filed the additional count in case the jury convicts on a lesser-included charge, such as second-degree murder, which carries a statutory sentence of eight to 24 years. A first-degree murder conviction carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty in Colorado.

“The tragic circumstances of Angie’s death gives Coloradans an opportunity to better understand Angie’s life and the lives of transgender people,” the coalition contends. Toward that end, ProgressNow Colorado produced a video featuring Zapata’s family remembering Angie [see Queen Emily's post “If I could accept my sister then I wish the whole world was like that” below]

Links:

• angiezapata.com
• GLAAD Resource Kit
• Facebook: Light a candle for Angie
• MySpace: Light a candle for Angie
• Twitter: Justice for Angie

—————

Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox

What happens when someone dies is that they’re usually mourned by their loved ones – family, friends, lovers.  When someone’s death is covered by a newspaper, and they are considered a good person, they are publically grievable.

When trans women are murdered  – and we are, a lot – media coverage is inevitably sensationalist and disrespectful.  Trans women (especially women of color) are assumed to be prostitutes, to have deceived their killers (cos no cis man would ever sleep with a trans woman knowingly, no no).  Are portrayed as freaks, objects of disgust.   Being transgendered disqualifies us from being grieved for.  Who could mourn for a freak?  Who would see that as a loss to the community, who would feel anger about that?

So when I see this video, featuring Angie Zapata’s family and friends, it’s apparent how loved she was, how missed she is–and how that aspect of the story is always left out.  Angie, like Ebony Whitaker, or Leeneshia Edwards deserves to be mourned as much as anyone.  We deserve to know who they were as well as why they died.  Because they were more than one facet of their lives, much much more.

via angiezapata.com

Via GLAAD:

In a disturbing diatribe on KNUS radio on March 14, host Trevor Carey engaged in a conversation with a caller in which both men condoned violence against transgender people, blaming slain Greeley, Colo. resident Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman, for her own brutal murder.

(Transcript from Colorado Media Matters):

CAREY: And what the transgender segment of our society needs to be telling their type is, you don’t commit fraud because –

CALLER: No, that’s exactly what it was.

CAREY: A), you’re at least gonna get your teeth kicked in, and B) – [caller laughs] – here’s a story from Greeley that turned out very tragic, and you should pay attention to this, because –

CALLER: You know, when I was growin’ up in Greeley, I grew up in Greeley, that kind of stuff didn’t ever, you know, surface in this town. And it’s just sad, you know; my heart just weeps for all, everybody that’s concerned. But, you know, we gotta go back to basics. You’re a man or you’re a woman, and, like you said, if you’re fraudin’ somebody, then you deserve to have your teeth kicked in. Not necessarily hung or you’re killed, but it just – they shoulda known better, you know?

Carey sustained his gratuitously defamatory tone throughout the entire show, and his remarks during the segment – including a false representation of a conversation with a GLAAD representative – make it clear that his references to Angie and her tragic murder will continue to be disrespectful, abusive and inaccurate. The transcript and audio for the program can be found on the Colorado Media Matters website.

Carey owes the family of Angie Zapata, the transgender community and all Coloradans an apology for condoning and promoting the very hostile climate that puts transgender people in harm’s way and then blames them for the resulting acts of violence committed against them.

TAKE ACTION NOW!
Please contact Trevor Carey and ask him to disavow his remarks that condone violence against transgender people. Call on KFKA and KNUS to hold Carey accountable for his remarks and establish clear standards to ensure their media platforms will not be used to condone or promote violence towards any parts of the communities they serve.

Please forward this link to any of your friends and others who may also wish to take action. When contacting KFKA and KNUS, please ensure that your emails and phone calls are civil and respectful and do not engage in the kind of name calling or abusive behavior that we are expressing our concerns about.

Trevor Carey
Host, KNUS, “Trevor Carey” and KFKA, “AM Colorado with Trevor, Troy and George”
Phone: (720) 434-2714
trevorcareywork@aol.com

Justin Sasso
General Manager, KFKA
Phone: (970) 356-1310
justin@1310kfka.com

Kelly Michaels
Operations Director, Salem Communications (KNUS)
Phone: (303) 750-5687
kelly@salemdenver.com

ETA: Added link to full transcript on Colorado Media Matters website

————

Curtsey to Lyssa for the heads up

————

(Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

Further to my post last week, the Greeley Tribune now reports that Judge Marcelo Kopcow has now released a ruling in which he deems Andrade’s July 30 confession to police to be inadmissible, and has refused to allow evidence that Andrade is a gang member.

As the Greeley Tribune reports:

Prosecutors will have to proceed without some key evidence in the murder trial of Allen Andrade.

[...]

[Judge] Kopcow said Andrade’s statements to police were elicited after he clearly told investigators he was finished answering questions about 39 minutes into the two-hour interrogation.

[...]

It’s unclear how much Andrade told [Detective] Tharp about his encounters with Zapata in that first 39 minutes, however.

According to a police affidavit, Andrade told Tharp he met Zapata on the Internet and that they had arranged a date. The affidavit said he stayed at Zapata’s apartment alone while she went out, and he realized Zapata was a man. When Zapata returned later, Andrade confronted her about being a man, eventually hitting her with his fists and knocking her to the ground, the affidavit stated.

Andrade, according to the affidavit, said he then hit Zapata with a fire extinguisher, and later, when she started to wake up, he hit her several more times until she died.

[...]

Kopcow also ruled that Andrade’s recorded statements in telephone calls from the Weld County Jail would remain as part of the evidence. In those calls, Andrade told his girlfriend that he “snapped” and that “gay things need to die.”

The phone calls, played at his preliminary hearing in September, detailed that something bad had happened and that Andrade had made a mistake.

Andrade expressed in the calls that he was out of control, outside himself and not a coherent person the day of the murder, the calls revealed. The phone calls also were laden with derogatory remarks toward homosexuals. In the calls, Andrade stated that people in jail were afraid of him because of his reputation for wielding a fire extinguisher, the suspected murder weapon.

To summarise, the following pieces of evidence will not be allowed:

• Confession to police
• Andrade’s alleged gang affiliation, photo showing him flashing a gang sign, evidence that gangs do not tolerate homosexuality

And these pieces of evidence will be allowed:

• Statements to police admitting to stealing Zapata’s car
• Recorded phone calls Andrade made from jail to his girlfriend
• Evidence from a friend saying Zapata looked convincingly like a woman
• Evidence and photos from Andrade’s cell phone (though some pictures are out). The cell phone notes 670 separate communications between Andrade and Zapata between July 1-16, 2008

Allen Andrade will be tried for murder in a two-week trial beginning April 14 before Weld District Court Judge Marcelo Kopcow. Attorneys have one last chance to resolve the case prior to trial in a pre-trial readiness conference scheduled March 30.

…Curtsey to Kyras for posting the link to the Greeley Tribune report in the comments on my earlier post…

————

(Cross-posted at bird of paradox)

The court case in connection with the murder last year of Angie Zapata continues slowly towards the trial date of April 14. On Friday (March 5), the District Judge, Marcello Kopcow, presided over a pretrial hearing and his decision – due next week – seems likely to decide the legal path of the trial itself.

A crucial aspect of the case is now whether the suspect’s confession will be allowed in court.

The accused, a cis man named Allen Andrade, is charged with first-degree murder, a bias-motivated (hate) crime, aggravated motor vehicle theft and identity theft, following the discovery of Angie Zapata in her apartment in July 2008. Mr Andrade was subsequently arrested almost two weeks later while driving Ms Zapata’s car. During questioning by Greeley Police, Mr Andrade said he hit Ms Zapata with a fire extinguisher, and later, when she started to wake up, he hit her several more times until she died.

Via the Greeley Tribune:

But the interrogation session may have been tainted, according to the attorneys representing Andrade. The report by [Detective Greg] Tharp shows that at one point in the session, Andrade lowered his head to the table and said “No, no, no.”

Later, when the detective told Andrade there was two sides to every story, Andrade replied, “Yeah, I’m done, though. He later said “I’m done. Yeah. I’m not talking right now.”

Although Detective Tharp continued to question Andrade, not believing he wanted an attorney, the later confession could be thrown out because of Andrade saying he was through talking.

[...]

Said defense attorney Annette Kundelius: “When Mr. Andrade made those statements, he was very sleepy, had been in the room for hours and had asked for coffee. Those statements were not voluntary.”

In addition to the debate about the confession, the attorneys argued several other points Friday:

• Whether or not Andrade is a gang member. The defense said he once was, but no longer; the prosecutors said he’s still a gang member and cites his recent fights in the jail, backing gang members. It opens one question: gangs have been known to kill members for committing homosexual acts. Deputy District Attorney Robert Miller said Andrade killed Zapata because she tricked him into a sex act and therefore was afraid he’d also be killed. They believe it shows he premeditated the murder.
• When Andrade was arrested in Zapata’s car, he told police he’d just stolen the car from a short distance away because the keys were in the ignition. Prosecutors had sexual photos of Andrade in Zapata’s car, taken the previous week. The photos were on a cell phone found that night in the car. Defense attorneys said there is no proof that the phone belonged to Andrade, or that police had the legal right to look at the photos.
• Defense attorneys will be arguing that the case is a “heat of passion murder,” and not first-degree because Andrade was angry with Zapata when he discovered she was a man. Prosecutors claim Andrade learned of the deception earlier in the day, then waited for Zapata to return home and killed her because of his fear of his gang members coming after him.
• Some quart bottles of beer were found in the room, and defense attorneys said they may be using “intoxication” as a defense in the case.

[...]

The murder trial of Mr Andrade is set to begin April 14.

————

(Cross-posted at bird of paradox)