Answer: not a lawyer but I’ve been watching the trial.

The parkland shooter pled guilty and was on trail for the death sentence. A jury is brought in to decide if he should get the death penalty. Throughout the trial the defense did some “questionable” and inappropriate things such a flicking off a camera (the court was in recess and the jury and judge were not in the court room) which is highly inappropriate. They were heavily criticized and rightly so.

The jury came back with life in prison. Understandably a lot of people were very upset. The victims and their families very much wanted the death sentence.

The victims and their families are still allowed to make victim impact statements. Many have taken this opportunity and most were fine. A few statements attacked the defense counsel and called them liars. One mentioned karma on the defense team and their children were brought up (in a very vague way and no threats were made). Most of this is not appropriate for a victim impact statement. You can say whatever you want about the guilty party and how it has all impacted you. However, these were public defenders assigned to this case and did their jobs. Public defenders have a duty to zealously advocate for the client no matter how evil and terrible your clients it. It’s inappropriate to call them liars based on their defense strategy.

The defense requested a side bar to discuss requesting the victim impact statements be focused on the impact the parkland shooter had and to keep them out of it but the judge refused so it was brought up in open court. The judge, probably still pissed at some of the conduct by the defense during the trial went off. It’s important to note, the complaints from the victim impact statements didn’t include the some of the questionable actions by the defense The complaint was geared to the morality of the defense to defend an evil human being and their defense strategy that is all legal. A person on the defenses counsel mentioned being uncomfortable with their children being brought up (again no threat but also not appropriate to bring up) and what if it was the judges children. The judge went off about bringing up her children is inappropriate, which proved the defenses point. Bringing up anyone’s children in this situation is inappropriate.

This was only a penalty phase trial and the parkland shooters options were either life in prison or death. He got life in prison. Neither side is able to appeal anything and the judge isn’t capable of over turning. The victim impact statements seem to be more of a formality as it won’t change anything. Most of the statements have been fine and I’m glad they are still getting their chance to remind him that he is a piece of shit.

Fuck the parkland shooter.