The Mary Winkler trial

The Mary Winkler trial presents a great example that undisputed facts are not always detrimental to the defense. In the Winkler trial there was no disputing that she in fact shot her husband point blank while he was asleep, that really was never in dispute. So what made this trial so different from other first degree murder cases, how can someone actually have those undisputed facts in Tennessee, and not get convicted of first or second degree murder? Mary Winkler was convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter.

From my understanding of the case, no one was called a liar, meaning again there was no disputing the facts of how he died, however what was so interesting was the facts about why she killed him. It is hard to say that those facts were in dispute, because only Mary Winkler could tell those, either you believed her or you did not, there was no dispute from any living human being.

It is my understanding from the trial that the couple was involved and belonged to a Church of Christ, the Church of Christ very much frowns on divorce, I think this is another fact that no one would disagree on during the trial. I think both sides could agree that the church was very apposed to divorce on strong literal interpretations of the bible, as the Church of Christ believes the bible literally, (some religions do not). This would come back again when Ms. Winkler testified, as she testified about sex acts that she performed with her husband that she did not like, some of these sex acts even between consenting adults married would also be frowned upon by the church that they belonged to, so once again we have another fact that no one really can dispute, the only person that knows the validity of whether that happened was Mary Winkler. She testified that it did, so who could the prosecution call to dispute that.

When Winkler took the stand the trial became about so much more than the facts of her shooting her husband, it became about what caused her to shoot her husband, the fact that she shot her husband became far less the focus, and more of a result of what she said he did to her.
In a since, the facts that she talked about on the stand became facts that no one could dispute, it became about, do you believe her?

Another note about the trial, there were a large number of women on the jury panel, in Tennessee women really come out to vote in local elections when a woman runs for political office. For the most part women really do support women in Tennessee in regards to politics, and the right to defend themselves from men. So the second great element of this trial is or was in place, a large number of women who I believe did not enjoy hearing about Ms. Winkler being forced to do sexual acts or dress a certain way for sex. In essence I don't think they liked the idea of this mother being forced to do things against her will, and when she opened a bag on the stand while testifying to show the jury what she had to wear, I think the jury had seen enough and thought she had a right to do something to stop this. There was no way to bring in a witness to prove she did not have to do these things, I mean how could anyone dispute what went on in her bedroom.

And lastly, how this all worked together, it worked together because she had a good attorney who understood in the south that women always can defend themselves; people should always be able to defend themselves in their home; sometimes religious values can allow for a person to commit what would otherwise be a wrong into a right, in essence a wrong can be justified by circumstances, in this case, the alleged abuse justifies murder; and sometimes a trial is not about the facts of what happened. And always remember in the south women do support women in politics, and the court system.