Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man convicted of 1988 West Roxbury murder
By adamg on Thu, 04/04/2013 - 6:19am
A Suffolk Superior Court jury yesterday found Michael Coker, 50, guilty of second-degree murder for the strangulation death of Janet Phinney in the Grove on March 18, 1988, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
The verdict means a life sentence, but with the possibility of parole in as little as 15 years.
Prosecutors proved that a spurned Coker strangled Phinney, then left her body in a wooded area behind Cedar Road.
Before sentencing, Phinney's brother, Robert, read a statement:
Janet was the baby girl in the family of seven kids. She was vivacious and her personality was extraordinary. Each of us hold our own special memory of Janet [but] there are 12 nieces and nephews who will never have the privilege of their own memories of their aunt ... She will never have the chance to have her own family and share in ours. She has missed 24 Christmases, 24 Easters, 24 Thanksgivings, and 591 family birthdays to this date. A piece of us all died that day and we will never be the same.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I'll never reallty understand "second degree murder"
Maybe somebody with a legal background, and patience for the ignorant, can explain it to me one more time. Are we saying he didn't plan it ahead of time, that momentary anger overtook him or something? That's what I used to think it meant, but it seems like people are often convicted of first degree murder for instances where it isn't clear there was premeditation.
Murder
Second degree murder is an intentional killing with malice and without justification/excuse. First degree is the same but also with deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity/cruelty. Or both. Premeditation can take seconds and doesn't require planning in advance. Atrocity/cruelty includes things like indifference to suffering. These are subjective and kind of require the jury to get inside the guy's head. If they believe the evidence but can't all agree on first, they can usually agree on second.
Possibility of getting parole @ 65?
Just in time to start collecting SS and medicare? He'll get out and into a nice federally subsidized elderly housing complex, get his SS, medicare, and probably every social service entitlement [yes, I know SS is in a different category]?