Loughner Trial In Tucson? Judge Approves Move

PHOENIX (Reuters) A federal judge has approved moving court proceedings to Tucson, Arizona from Phoenix for Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year-old college dropout accused in a shooting rampage there, court filings said on Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns signed off on the agreement between prosecutors and defense attorneys to move the case to the same city where the shootings occurred on January 8, court papers said.

Burns wrote that the order "does not affect the defendant's right to move for a change of venue in the future."

Loughner has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of attempting to assassinate U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and attempted murder of her two staff members.

Authorities allege that Loughner went to a grocery store where Giffords was conducting a community event and opened fire, killing six people and wounding 13 others.

Among those killed was U.S. District Judge John Roll.

Giffords was shot through the head, but survived, and is undergoing rehabilitation in Houston, Texas.

Burns took over the case when all federal judges in Arizona recused themselves because one of the shooting victims was their colleague, Judge Roll. Burns normally works out of the southern district of California.

Loughner could face up to life in prison if convicted of trying to kill the lawmaker. The other two attempted murder charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years.

(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Greg McCune)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[dbrett480]

08:55 PM on 02/06/2011

If the defense wanted him moved somewhere he should have gone to Texas. They have a special way of handling these types of cases.

[claudiam]

03:03 PM on 02/01/2011

Jared should be tried in Tucson among his peers. As far as an insanity plea - not so much. After reading the sites he looked at on-line, this guy knew exactly what he was doing. At least the Uni-bomber and McVay were man enough to admit and own up to what they did. claudiatucsonaz

[joeyfoto]

02:26 PM on 02/01/2011

When I first read this whack-jobs web ravings, I said: "He's just setting up an insanity defense under M'Naghten Rules." Basically, the defendant is too mentally ill to be held responsible for determining the difference between right and wrong. After I saw his court photograph, I shook my head and thought: "Maybe he wasn't faking it."

If that's true, it's going to be tough to convict him of any crime... However, if he was as obviously psychotic as he appeared in his photos, the person who sold him that ammo committed a prosecutable felony.

[Cory111]

10:07 AM on 02/01/2011

I wonder how Gabrielle Giffords is doing these days, not much news here...

[orangeboxx]

07:53 AM on 02/01/2011

"allege" You hear that? He's an innocent man.

[RationalityPlease]

09:32 AM on 02/01/2011

You should be grateful he is entitled to habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence, no matter the facts of the case or situation. Why? Because it means the rest of us--including you-- still have some hope of being entitled to the same.

[Pennstategirl]

09:40 AM on 02/01/2011

As you may already know, I'm sure, we have a justice system that until convicted, he is an alleged murderer. Given the circumstances, a review of how we deal with mental illness within our health care system might be appropriate. Or, god forbid, the sacred 2nd amendment/ gun control issue.

[DoctorGreeves]

04:44 AM on 02/01/2011

Remember the talk a week or so ago, about how a judge probably wouldn't accept a guilty plea? While this man is certainly entitled to a trial, a plea that reflected his obvious guilt would have shortened up the entire process and cost tax payers much less. The lawyers are going to make a real ki//ing on this one, though.

[gentlewomanfarmer]

05:52 AM on 02/01/2011

Looks like my first reply to this didn't make it through. I'll start over.

Your characterization of the money that the lawyers will make is "interesting" given the context. The Loughner family is unlikely to be able to afford a defense. Defense counsel's time is either heavily discounted or is donated. And the prosecutor is on salary.

The real money for lawyers is in the representation of high net worth clients. There aren't any here.

[Jim bob]

03:26 PM on 02/01/2011

That's just ignorant and mean.

[praying for snow]

01:35 AM on 02/01/2011

trial, for what. he's guilty. period

[Mark Kholdinasab]

01:38 AM on 02/01/2011

Because in America, everybody gets a trial. Which is how it should be.

[yepIsaidIt]

02:38 AM on 02/01/2011

Yea, everyone gets a trial but it depends on where it is and what you look like that determines whether it will be fair, verdict and sentence.

[eko425]

01:46 AM on 02/01/2011

I really hope you never get to serve on a jury.

[Titanshanks]

01:14 AM on 02/01/2011

No matter how sure we are that he's guilty, we still need to afford him the same rights as everyone tried in our courts. The legal process can never presume guilt. Assigning him the lawyer who previously defended Timothy McVeigh isn't right.

[Ryan Heerbrandt]

01:09 AM on 02/01/2011

Everyone that interacted with him in the days leading up to the shooting, every one of his myspace "friends", anyone on campus that found him threatening and erratic should be thrown in prison too. Every bit of evidence shows that anyone who came in contact with him found him threatening...and yet nothing was done.
Sure, this brings up issues for gun control and security for public figures...but this should also start a debate on mental health, the stigmata it brings, and how the public will do all it can to block it from it's conciousness.

[Michael Allen Powers]

03:20 AM on 02/01/2011

Please. If i reported every person I saw on a daily basis that I thought might be a danger to someone, that's all I would have time for. Haven't you ever ridden a city bus? I'm pretty sure that each state has a law requiring that a least one clinically insane person be riding one at all times. And I'm not even counting all the people that look and act normal for years, until something suddenly snaps and they end up killing sons, daughters, spouses, and strangers for no apparent reason. Even under the most nominal of conditions, a person's perception of reality is really little more than a house of cards.

[Ryan Heerbrandt]

05:16 AM on 02/01/2011

Many of these insane people on these famed city buses have already been washed out of the system, either by their own choice, or by the system that failed them. And these strangers that just snap? Any psychologist will tell you there are warning signs, obvious big frickin' warning signs. Not that anyone can predict the behavior or a normal human being, let alone one with an altered perception, but anyone working in mental health will tell you the shortcomings, from your average schizo, to the decorated war officer with PTSD.
In short, we're an intuitive race, capable of picking up anything from minute facial movements to vocal inflections that seem out of the ordinary...if we slowly pull our heads out of our collective asses and iPads, we might see the things going on around us, instead of merely reacting to it.

[UpstateNY]

09:06 AM on 02/01/2011

That's so dangerous.   How can anyone determine how a person will act?  Our laws are set up to punish people for their acts, not their thoughts. 

I agree that we don't have enough mental health options - but we cannot 'deputize' ordinary people to ferret out dangerous people because they think they are acting erratically.  Most of us would be in danger of being judged erratic by some of our 'friends' at certain points in our lives.

[Ryan Heerbrandt]

12:04 AM on 02/02/2011

You've got me all wrong. The answer is not to "ferret out" those with mental problems, and I'm a little concerned that you jumped so quickly to that conlcusion. I'm talking about education. Through proper education and embracing compassion can we understand what some of these people are going through, or at least have the frame of mind to be proactive instead of reactive. Not through violence or suspicion, but through the proper channels and with care. As Americans, I think we are too quick to jump to isolate incidents, distance ourselves and pontificate rather than learn from it.

[terry63]

12:49 AM on 02/01/2011

He's a Christian?

[terry63]

12:50 AM on 02/01/2011

Please send me the facts on that.

[Ramon Moreno]

02:32 AM on 02/01/2011

Christians have no facts.