As for the third option, we'd be surprised if a court ruled that life without parole is unconstitutional, even for a 16-year-old whose judgment is far from mature. Such a sentence is no doubt extremely harsh - so harsh, in fact, that the legislature changed the law two years ago, thank goodness, to permit the possibility of parole after 40 years. But claiming that the previous mandatory sentence was actually unconstitutional sounds like a bit of a stretch.

By contrast, the facts seem to support a new trial or an appeal.

"Nathan's attorney called no witnesses," attorney Michael Gallagher pointed out in his motion for a retrial. "He presented no evidence. He failed to cross-examine Nathan's father, who retained him, about the abusive home environment."

Gallagher argues that Ybanez's original lawyer found his hands tied. "Simply put," he said, "Nathan could not be defended by an attorney hired by Nathan's abusive father because that abuse was the heart of Nathan's defense."

Maybe so. Or maybe Craig Truman, Ybanez's highly-regarded attorney at the time, simply thought he had a better defense strategy - one that failed in the end to achieve its goals. Whatever the reason, the defense ignored the background of abuse - a decision that clearly turned out to be a mistake.

Ybanez's role in the murder of his mother is not in dispute. The issue is whether the jury would have had second thoughts about sending the teenager to prison for the rest of his life if it had known of abuse he apparently suffered in the home where he committed the crime. We believe the answer might well have been yes.

Very few teenagers are reduced to fleeing their homes in the middle of the night in their underwear for fear of a parent's rage, yet Ybanez once appeared at a friend's house in precisely such a state.

And while his home life, however fearful and wretched, is no excuse for the horrible crime that he eventually committed, it does raise the question of whether a conviction for second-degree murder might have been more appropriate under the circumstances.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

·         December 10, 2008

5:38 a.m.

roger44 writes:

This is one reason I wouldn't want to sit on a jury, not all the facts are given to allow the jury to decide. There are monsters out there that should not be Parents.

·         December 10, 2008

6:05 a.m.

Shadow writes:

Once again a jump to conclusions and in hindsite. Is there a possibility that maybe the judge denied motions to bring the evidance of abuse into trial. Pehaps the fact social services should have been investigated for once again failing to do their job. No it is easier to say that a person who knew right from wrong is innocent in the murder of another person. It is always someone elses fault. No one had to take responsibility for their own actions.

The facts are that the boy murdered his mother, the jury brought in a conviction of guilty, the judge sentanced the boy under the current law at the time.

Life goes on.

·         December 10, 2008

7:15 a.m.

sheepherder writes:

IF you believe his story, which I do not.

·         December 10, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Minnow writes:

A kid doesn't wake up one morning and say 'hey, I'm going to kill my mother' for no reason at all.... There is more to this story than may meet the eye.

I actually do believe the allegations of abuse. I know the parents of one of his friends and they were aware there was abuse taking place. They tried to help and made phone calls, to no avail.

As for a fair trial, no, the allegations of abuse were not raised (yes, I am familiar with the case and have done some research). His attorney did not bring it up at all basically because the person who was paying the bill (his father) did not want it to be brought up. A person is entitled to 'conflict free' counsel. The boy was his client, not the father. This attorney should have provided his client with a defense, not spared the father and the memory of the mother of the shame of being identified as child abusers. But, I suppose if the attorney did bring it up, the father would have not paid the attorney....

I can not imagine an attorney not calling a single witness during a first degree murder trial. If you were to read through some of the transcripts of the trial, you would be appalled at the attorney's performance.

Is the sentence too harsh...? I guess that is for each person to decide. I think a juvenile does not have the brain development/experience/judgment to make the same decisions as an adult. So why then should they be punished as harshly as an adult. Yes, he killed his mother. Yes, he should be held responsible. He should be rehabilitated (or habilitated depending on your view). A life sentence is basically saying that this person is beyond redemption, that he is a worthless person who has nothing to contribute to society, ever! Personally, I think that we, as a society, owe this person a second chance at life. Our society failed him. He did not ask for the treatment his parents gave him. He was raised to be dysfunctional. Our society failed him in not stepping in. We were not there for him when he needed us. I think it is now our duty to step in and try to balance the pendulum. (take it from someone who was abused as a child - the neighbors knew, and did nothing - my teachers knew, and did nothing - my aunts and uncles knew, and did nothing)

I would much rather see us provide this person with the tools and skills they need to be a productive member of society. Let him out after serving a reasonable sentence (15 years???) so he can get a job and pay taxes. The alternative is for the rest of us tax payers to foot the bill to keep him in prison for the rest of his life.

If you want more information watch a PBS Frontline documentary called "When Kids Get Life." This case was featured. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli...

·         December 11, 2008

2 p.m.

maryellen writes:

Colorado has three kids serving life for killing at least one of their abusive parents. All of these kids reached out to social services, to teachers and to those in authority for help. Nobody helped them--including the courts. Nobody cared that these kids had been battered and abused and either ignored or buried the evidence. All were tried as adults and we were all too happy to lock them away where they will continue to be abused by a system that is as dysfunctional as anything they ever endured as children.
Nathan Ybanez deserves a new trial -- or Governor Ritter could grant all three of these young men a commutation. Governor Romer granted commutations to battered women, but that was a long time a ago when we actually balanced punishment with mercy-- and we all know that battered children are less worthy than battered children. Polls show that more than 80% of Coloradans believe that a child who kills his or her abuser deserves clemency or a commutation -- and yet we continue to allow these young men to rot in prison.
Finally, let's not forget those who were caught up in these "crimes," such as Nathan's friend, Erik Jensen, who is also serving a life sentence. As Nathan said in "When Kids Get Life," I don't even know why he's in prison. He didn't even DO anything."
We, as a society, have an opportunity to DO something now. Legislators, Governor Ritter, are you listening?

Post your comment

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.