Legal question - how can this be?

[Rich Engelhardt]

I was reading a story in the newspaper yesterday about Summer Susan Shalodi. She, was indicted Thursday on charges of murder, three counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of endangering children, two counts of corrupting another with drugs, and tampering with evidence,

An 18 month old toddler had died while in her care.

She was babysitting the toddler and other children at the time.

I can understand the two counts of endagering children since there was more than one child present. I can understand the two counts of corrupting since there were other children present.

What I don't get is why three counts of involuntary manslaughter? Why three if only one child died?
If there was only one crime, then why can they charge her three times for the same crime?

[Barry McFadden]

Something you would have to ask the local law enforcement about....

[Jebediah Eckert]

Maybe a mistake in the story? You wouldn't get charged with murder and involuntary manslaughter.

Just like if a person beat somebody to death with a club it wouldn't be murder, assault first, assault third, and breach of peace...it would just be murder.

[Brian Elfert]

I thought they charge for both murder and involuntary manslaughter in case the jury doesn't believe it was murder and wants to go with manslaughter instead?

[Jebediah Eckert]

Maybe in Ohio it is different but that doesn't happen here. The police don't charge both and let a jury pick the best one. The judge may give an option at trial for a lesser charge to consider. One act gets the highest appropriate charge. If you initially charge both a jury could in theory convict on both charges. By definition if involuntary manslaughter fits then murder doesn't.

Even if it is different in Ohio it still wouldn't explain 3 counts, that's why I went with mistake.

[Charles Wiggins]

As they say, the devil is in the details. More than likely the D.A.'s office has multiple theories about the actions that led to the death of the child, so each charge represents a different line of reasoning that may be pursued at trial.

[Rich Riddle]

Rich, that paper needs to hire you as an editor.

[John Sanford]

It sounds like charge stacking. Often, charge stacking is used to scare the defendant into taking a plea deal. Common sense says it should be unconstitutional. She's being tried multiple times for the same event, under the fig leaf of different charges. It looks, at least based on the very bare information available, that they going for a variation of the "attempted murder charges = Number of bullets fired MULTIPLIED by number of people in vicinity" rationale. My guess is that the kid consumed 4 of the anti-anxiety meds, ergo, 4 charges. The murder charge probably means that the prosecution believes the kid was given at least one of the Xanax.

Better understanding depends on actually reading the indictment as well as relevant Ohio law.

Never forget though:

In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments.

Wachtler, who became the state's (NY) top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."

[Mel Fulks]

That tired "ham sandwich" thing does not inspire confidence in a profession that depends on story telling. Just checked ...no sandwiches have actually been convicted.

[Jim Koepke]

That tired "ham sandwich" thing does not inspire confidence in a profession that depends on story telling. Just checked ...no sandwiches have actually been convicted.

No, but there may have been a conviction of a man for what he used to make sandwiches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alferd_Packer

Odd thing is he has been memorialized in song, with eating establishments and sandwiches named for him.

One slogan, "have a friend for lunch."

jtk

[Tom Stenzel]

Here in Michigan stacking like that must be allowed. When I was on a jury the man was charged with first degree murder AND second degree murder, plus a laundry list of other charges. I despise the practice. The DA can't figure out what law is broken? If someone hadn't died I would have been tempted to say let the miscreant walk. As it was we tossed most of the charges.

By the way, I remember the flap when the Dept. of Agriculture named a cafeteria the Alferd Packer Memorial Grill.

[John Sanford]

That tired "ham sandwich" thing does not inspire confidence in a profession that depends on story telling. Just checked ...no sandwiches have actually been convicted.

Which, undoubtedly, is of great relief to ham sandwiches. After all, there's no possible way that being dragged through the court system could be construed as a punishment itself, is there? Actually, I suppose if one WERE a ham sandwich, being indicted would present something of a conundrum. Plea out and do everything possible to accelerate the process so one can get on with one's purpose in existence, i.e. being eaten, or drag it out as long as possible in order to avoid the near inevitable fate of ham sandwiches. Being eaten. Not being a ham sandwich myself, I'm not certain I can put myself into the proper frame of bread to sort it out...

[Kev Williams]

It sounds like charge stacking.

I'm no lawyer, but I do believe it's pretty much impossible to get a grand jury to indict someone for causing the death of 3 people when 3 people didn't die.

I'm leaning more towards 'media stacking'-- whereas the news agency doing the story makes up their own 'facts' as they go. Happens so often it's ridiculous.

[Duane Meadows]

I'm no lawyer, but I do believe it's pretty much impossible to get a grand jury to indict someone for causing the death of 3 people when 3 people didn't die.

I'm leaning more towards 'media stacking'-- whereas the news agency doing the story makes up their own 'facts' as they go. Happens so often it's ridiculous.

+1. The medias seeming motto... "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!"

[Dan Hintz]

You can charge someone with a litany of stuff... before it goes to trial, though, the DA will have to decide which specific charges to try the gal for... you can't throw the entire book at someone, then if the higher charge fails, stick them with the lower charge.