A panel of US judges will this week consider whether a 13-year-old boy accused of slaying his father\'s fiance should be tried as an adult and therefore face a possible life sentence.
Pennsylvania\'s Superior Court is considering an appeal by defense lawyers, who want the teen, Jordan Brown, to be sent to a juvenile facility rather than face imprisonment without parole as an adult.
Emotions were high ahead of Tuesday\'s hearing, given the horrific nature of the crime and the broader legal implications that the three-judge panel must consider in the case.
Brown was just 11, a chubby schoolboy, when he allegedly shot Kenzie Houk, then eight months pregnant, in the back of the head in February 2009 in her rural home northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Prosecutors allege that the boy waited until his father left for work that Friday morning before entering Houk\'s bedroom and shooting her with a 20-gage shotgun.
After that, prosecutors say, he went to school, dropping the spent cartridge outside and leaving Houk\'s daughter, aged four, to discover the grisly scene.
Last year, a local judge ruled that Brown, by then 13, should stand trial as an adult for what is being considered the double murder of Houk and her near full-term baby son.
In the two years since the crime, Brown has been in custody and the case has drawn attention to on how children are handled in the American criminal justice system.
Amnesty International has been prominent in campaigning to overturn the judge\'s ruling, saying it is "deeply disturbed" by the fact that Brown would, if convicted, never be free again.
However, under Pennsylvania law, a serious crime like a homicide is initially filed in criminal court unless the defense can make a case for sending it to the juvenile system.
In criminal court, Brown would be tried as an adult, whereas in juvenile court he would be tried as a minor and win release at 21, supposedly after rehabilitation.
An initial attempt by Brown\'s attorney to convince the court that the boy has potential to be rehabilitated failed when county Judge Dominick Motto issued his ruling last year.
Both sides have already filed written briefs before Pennsylvania\'s highest court. On Tuesday, attorneys will make brief oral arguments, after which the court will rule -- although there is no deadline for that to happen.
The defense plans to argue that Brown is trapped, since in order to prove that he can be rehabilitated he must accept responsibility for his actions and show remorse, and that this would amount to an admission of guilt.
"In other words, he\'s maintained his innocence, and because he\'s maintained his innocence, the court sees that he\'s not accepted responsibility," said David Acker, a defense attorney for Brown.
The state calls this a "misreading."
"The \'Catch-22\' that they claim to exist doesn\'t exist, because Judge Motto explicitly said that was not a requirement (to admit guilt)," Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the state attorney general\'s office, said.
While Brown\'s legal team believes the case is about constitutional rights, the state is focusing on the narrower matter of whether Motto followed the law in his March ruling.
For Deborah Houk, mother of the murdered woman, the legal arguments mean only more pain.
"No matter what happens, nothing will bring back my daughter," she told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "I\'m devastated to think that someone would want to re-hear all this again."
© Copyright AFP Agence France-Presse GmbH - All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. All reproduction or redistribution is expressly forbidden without the prior written agreement of AFP.
KATALOG FIRM W INTERNECIE
