The murder conviction of a New Jersey mother who was charged in her son's killing 23 years after he vanished has been vacated by a panel of judges, according to court documents.
Michelle Lodzinski's murder conviction was vacated by the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday, a vote of 4-3 due to a lack of proper evidence, documents state.
"We now hold that after reviewing 'the entirety of the evidence and after giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony and all the favorable inferences drawn from that testimony,' no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lodzinski purposefully or knowingly caused Timothy's death," Justice Barry Albin wrote.
Albin acknowledged that while Lodzinski gave "shifting accounts about Timothy's disappearance that cast doubt on her credibility," she never made an incriminating admission, nor did any forensic evidence tie her to her son's death.
"Searches of her house, her car, and her garbage generated no evidence of guilt. No one ever observed Lodzinski abuse Timothy," Albin wrote. He added that the medical examiner was not able to determine Timothy's cause of death and said, "By most accounts, Lodzinski was caring and devoted to her son, though challenged by the demands of everyday life as a young single mother."
"Even if the evidence suggested that Timothy did not die by accident, no testimony or evidence was offered to distinguish whether Timothy died by the negligent, reckless, or purposeful or knowing acts of a person, even if that person were Lodzinski. No conviction can be founded on speculation or conjecture. We may never know the truth about what happened in this case. The only issue is whether the evidence -- presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution -- supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Lodzinski purposely or knowingly caused the death of her son. By that standard the conviction cannot be sustained," Albin wrote.
Three justices dissented in Tuesday's opinion, stating that they considered Lodzinski's acquittal to be "unwarranted and unjust," and that it "undermines the jury's role at the heart of our criminal justice system."
"If any reasonable jury could convict a defendant with the evidence viewed and inferences drawn favorably to the State, appellate judges must respect that verdict, no matter how strongly they disagree," the dissenting justices wrote.
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
patch.com
14yr Charleston Boy Charged with Murder to Have Case Tried as an Adult
