Robert Tulloch's surprising decision to change his plea at a hearing today has the potential to present a peculiar scenario -- Tulloch may avoid a trial by accepting a sentence of life in prison.
According to legal analysts, if Tulloch's decision to abandon an insanity defense leads to a guilty plea, it will be a highly unusual and nearly unprecedented situation.
Tulloch, charged with first-degree murder, will receive a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole if he pleads guilty. Although there have been other murder cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty, it is usually in hopes of leniency. In this case, however, there is only one possible sentence, explained John Kirkpatrick, director of justice at the University of New Hampshire.
"It is very unusual that a guilty plea is entered when the penalty is life without parole," he said.
Michael Mello, a law professor at Vermont Law School, agreed. "The only murder cases in which [a guilty plea] usually occurs is when there is the possibility of the death penalty, and even that is very rare," he said.
Mello referred to the 1925 Leopold and Loeb case, in which two accused teen murderers and their lawyer, Clarence Darrow, "stunned the world by pleading them guilty with no trial." Their crime carried a maximum sentence of death, but instead of trying to prove insanity, Darrow asked for a lighter sentence of life in prison.
Kirkpatrick cited a similar example of this type of case which occurred in New Hampshire in 1999. The defendant was accused of murdering a police officer, a crime punishable by death. The defendant entered a guilty plea and received life in prison.
In Tulloch's case, however, the death penalty is not an option. Since a guilty plea will result in a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole, it's hard to explain why Tulloch would abandon his insanity defense.
"It may be that Tulloch did not want to drag his family through a trial ... or he just couldn't bear seeing his best friend on the stand testifying against him," Kirkpatrick said, referring to James Parker, the other defendant in the case. Parker has agreed to testify for the prosecution in return for a second-degree murder charge.
In addition to the pain a trial would inflict upon Tulloch and his family, an insanity defense would almost certainly fail, according to analysts.
"I can't imagine an insanity case would prevail," James Moir, a Concord, N.H., criminal defense lawyer, told the Boston Globe. "If you have two young men together planning a home invasion and murder for robbery purposes, I don't see how any juror could find that was the product of some delusion or hallucination."
Mello compared Tulloch's case to the recent decision on the Andrea Yates case. Yates, accused of murdering her children, mounted an elaborate defense and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but the jury found her guilty.
Mello called Yates' case "a benchmark."
"Andrea Yates was off. Everyone she came in contact with sensed that there was a 'clock-striking-13' quality about her ... but she was still sane," he said. "When you get down to the criminal culpability of the mentally ill, you can be profoundly mentally ill and still be sane."
In contrast with Yates, "Tulloch looked and sounded like a normal person," Mello said.
Legally, Tulloch has two options tomorrow -- a guilty plea or a "no contest" plea. Although the possibility of a "no contest" plea theoretically exists, all indications point away from this choice. A "no contest" plea represents a simple acceptance of the sentence without an admission of guilt, explained Mello.
"'No contest' pleas are common in white-collar crimes. It is almost unheard of in a murder case," he said.
Kirkpatrick said he doubted the judge would accept a "no contest" plea.
"Anytime you have a trial so horrific, the court has a responsibility to see that justice is served," he said.
Often a guilty plea results from plea-bargaining with the prosecution, but in this case, the guilty plea will not come as a result of any bargain.
"There is no deal to be made. I really do believe that the prosecution was uninterested in negotiation on this case," Kirkpatrick said. "The plea appears to be a completely defense-initiated move."
Lead prosecutor Kelly Ayotte told reporters yesterday that she was aware of one other similar case in New Hampshire case history. In 1996, New York City police Officer James S. Anderson pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of his wife. Anderson was sentenced to life without parole.
For Parker's sentence, which could be from 25 years to life in prison, the judge will "probably go with what the prosecution recommends," Mello said.
With regards to Tulloch, Kirkpatrick said, "There are no other options. That is what is remarkable about it -- that it's over."
