VIDEO: Lacey Spears’ responsible verdict learn in courtroom; see reactions | 2:07
Lacey Spears listens because the jury foreman reads her responsible verdict of second-diploma homicide within the demise of her son. The decision got here March 2, 2015, on the Westchester County Courthouse.
1 of two
VIDEO: Lacey Spears impassive as decide sentences her | 1:23
Lacey Spears listens April eight, 2015, on the Westchester County Courthouse as Decide Robert Neary sentences her to twenty years to life within the killing of her son Garnet Spears.
2 of two
Final VideoNext Video
Lacey Spears’ homicide conviction attraction was shot down by a panel of state appellate judges on Wednesday.
Spears was discovered responsible in 2015 of killing her 5-yr-previous son, Garnett, by meting out a deadly dose of salt by means of his feeding tube. Garnett had many sicknesses earlier than dying on Jan. 23, 2014, at Maria Fareri Youngsters’s Hospital in Valhalla. Westchester County Assistant District Lawyer Doreen Lloyd stated Spears had proven a sample of sickening her in any other case wholesome youngster out of a “weird” want for consideration.
Spears, who had lived together with her son in Rockland, was convicted by a jury in 2015 of second-diploma homicide underneath the idea that she confirmed a wicked indifference to human life and was sentenced to twenty years to life in jail.
APPEAL: Lacey Spears appeals murder conviction
READ: Losing Garnett the Great, our five-part series
Defense’s arguments and appellate court’s ruling:
1.The defense argued that evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction.
- The Appellate Court found evidence was legally sufficient “to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court said Spears demonstrated “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she acted “under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life” because she repeatedly sickened her son and subjected him to pain until he wasn’t able to breathe and became brain dead.
2. The defense argued some evidence taken from her phone, including text messages, should be thrown out because the search warrant affidavits submitted by police omitted the traditional language “sworn before me” above the judge’s signature.
- The Appellate Court ruled that there was “substantial compliance” with the law. In its decision, the the Appellate Court explained, although the warrant applications didn’t contain a “traditional jurat or form notice,” they were labeled as affidavits and identified the affiant by name declaring that he was…