Jurors in Birmingham convicted Raymond Carlisle of a reduced charge of felony murder for the robbery and shooting of Prof. Sammie Speigner. The prosecutors had hoped for a capital murder conviction, while the killer’s mother thought it should have been manslaughter. See, supposedly Prof. Speigner picked up Mr. Carlisle for sex, offering to buy him some marijuana as a lure. Instead of saying “no” and exiting the car, Mr. Carlisle pulled a gun, chased Prof. Speigner from the car, and shot him to death. Then, instead of running away in horror or maybe even reporting the attempted assault to the police, Mr. Carlisle took the Professor’s car and wallet. He was caught a few days later, still driving the car, after using the stolen credit cards to party with his friends.
Defense attorneys Amber Ladner and Cynthia Umstead contended the defendant, 19 at the time, reacted in the heat of passion when the 37-year-old victim tried to homosexually assault him…
… During cross-examination Wednesday, [Prosecutor Joe] Roberts even got Carlisle to admit his actions at the scene and after the shooting looked more like he was robbing Speigner, instead of being victimized by the man.
Carlisle took Speigner’s car, wallet and checkbook, and used the dead man’s credit cards to buy beer, cigarettes and gasoline with friends, testimony in the four-day trial showed.
He admitted renting the car to someone else for a couple of days. Carlisle was arrested while drinking and smoking marijuana in the car, which had a new tag and freshly tinted windows.
Yeah, that definitely sounds like the traumatized victim of an attempted rape. The defense’s closing argument was truly disgusting.
Carlisle testified he got into Speigner’s car because the man said he wanted to buy marijuana. In her closing argument, [defense attorney Amber] Ladner compared Speigner’s actions to that of a molester using a puppy to lure a young child.
“They use what they can to get them into the car,” she said.
I’ll admit to some personal bias here; my stepdaughter knew Professor Speigner and thought highly of him. But it makes me sick that a predator yet again gets to blame the victim. If Mr. Carlisle had been Ms. Carlisle telling the same story, does anyone here think she would have been believed?
This reminds me of the case in Vermont. Apparently it’s not only judges who have a skewered view of what constitutes a crime. Since when is a 19 year old a kid? And do the victim of child molesters ever get caught spending their molester’s money, driving his car, and playing with his puppy?
Sometimes people make me sick.
Trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a defense attorney named “Amber” …
Since when is a 19 year old a kid?
And good point Wanda … if you make the victim a woman and the killer a 16 year old, they’d have been screaming for his head.
Sounds like the jury didn’t buy the argument. Felony murder is an extremely serious charge, and capital murders tend to be more exceptional (e.g. torture, multiple killings, police killed, extensive pre-meditation, etc.).