Top Stories Wichita

BY ROXANA HEGEMAN

Associated Press

An attorney for the man accused of shooting George Tiller has argued in court documents that his client has an ”absolute right” to present a defense that argues the killing was justified to stop abortion.

A defense motion made public Monday seeks to thwart prosecutors’ efforts to ban the so-called necessity defense from Scott Roeder’s murder and aggravated assault trial. A hearing on the issue is set for Dec. 22.

“For the Court to grant the State’s motion to prohibit ‘any evidence’ in support of the necessity defense would be premature, and contrary to Kansas law,” the defense wrote. ”In addition, it would be rank speculation on the part of the state (and the Court if it were to grant said Motion) as to the purpose of any and all evidence that the Defendant may seek to introduce.”

Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., is charged with one count of first-degree murder in Tiller’s death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers who tried to stop him during the May 31 incident in the foyer of
Tiller’s Wichita church. Roeder has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial Jan 11.

He told reporters earlier this month that he shot Tiller to protect unborn children and planned to present a necessity defense at his trial. He also said one of his two public defenders, Mark Rudy, had given him the ”green light” to talk to the
media about it.

But the following day, lead defense attorney Steve Osburn told reporters the necessity defense did not exist in Kansas law and the defense team did not plan to present that strategy.

On Monday, Osburn declined to clarify the discrepancy between the court filing and his earlier statement, but he suggested he may have used the media to confuse prosecutors about the defense strategy.

Rudy did not immediately return a call for comment Monday. Georgia Cole, spokeswoman for the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office, declined to talk about the case, saying prosecutors would make their arguments in court.

In the wake of Roeder’s confession, prosecutors filed court papers seeking to ban the necessity defense at his trial.

To bolster their argument, they cited a criminal trespass case involving an abortion clinic in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that to allow the personal beliefs of a person to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from
exercising his rights would ”not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy.”

Roeder’s public defenders responded that his case differs because a trespass at an abortion clinic is just a potential temporary interruption of the practice of abortion.

Defense attorneys noted the Supreme Court also said that whether ”the necessity defense should be adopted or recognized in Kansas may best be left for another day.”

     Showing:

Oldest firstNewest firstMost-recommended firstLeast-recommended first

@Nyx.CommentBody@