A matter of law

Because of the brutality and the victim's positioning when found, why the lack of defensive wounds and lack of sound heard by neighbors would not go to show premeditation? Murder – First Degree would appear to be the correct verdict because of this circumstantial evidence. Wouldn't this information, as part of the prosecution, allow a reasonable person to believe the victim asleep at the time the beating began?

I believe any non-criminal lifestyle should be perceived as socially acceptable behavior. This is not to be confused with a non-religious lifestyle which is personal, not social. That said, any sarcastic acknowledgment of one's chosen lifestyle should be deemed derogatory and not to be encouraged.

Tolerance is well-preached but stood up for rarely. It is a shame that it must be legislated.

Sorry Jamie but you are wrong on this. Andrade apparently attacked Angie while she slept – that's an ambush. The fire extinguisher was not at hand, he had to walk over to it. Andrade had ample opportunity to change his mind. It appears he needed to destroy the object of his self-loathing. That sets up premeditation in my mind (and that conclusion is from testimony, not commentators comments). The verdict was correct.

I agree... this was second degree murder

It's a slippery slope... and we are now going down it

Jami, I agree with you that it is never okay to hurt someone because of who they are. Even if I don't personally agree with their lifestyle. Was there any mention of when the sentencing phase was to take place?

Ditto on Vickie's note, even the "sorry Jami part"!

It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of fact - whether the defendant acted in the heat of passion or acted with premeditation. Answering that question was the province of the jury (as a matter of law). They spoke and commentary like this, second-guessing them, suggesting your judgment is better than theirs, is inappropriate. It's age old defense strategy to cop to a less serious crime in the hopes of minimizing the penalty . . . this was just more of the same.

If the jury believed that the defendant knew about the transgender issue for a day and a half - the killing was NOT a heat of passion killing. Even if the attack started in the heat of passion, if the final killing blow was a calculated attempt to finish the victim off, to hide the prior attack, the murder was not done in the heat of passion.

The verdict was dead on. The defense-oriented commentary presumes a theory the jury rejected.

Jami – I too have to disagree with you. Andrade's excuse is that he didn't know Angie was a male. Andrade knew full well what he was doing.

I feel sure of that, not only because of the previous court experience with Zapata, but his sexual experience with her. His DNA, and only his DNA was found on sex toys found in her house. Not to mention that It would be extremely difficult to hide Angie’s sex during any sexual contact between the two.

If someone just "snaps," they don't search out the first heavy blunt object to commit the crime. It's done with whatever they have with them at that instant in time. I am quite confident that he wasn't just walking around with a fire extinguisher.

This was nothing but premeditated, first-degree murder.

There are no "degrees" of death. It is final and does not take a lawyer to prove it. He has created a life of horrific Karma for himself, so Angie is at peace and surrounded by love forever,

The jury (and you) didn't hear the excluded part of the confession where the lying in wait was clear (because he admitted it), as was the fact that he went back after half an hour when she wasn't dead yet and smashed her head again. The confession was properly truncated by the judge because the cop overstepped the bounds of the 5th amendment when the defendant said he was done answering questions.

But what was clear in the evidence the jury heard was that Andrade spent 12 hours in the apartment alone before she came home and he killed her. How long does someone have to lie in wait before it's officially lying in wait?

Jamie, the jury's verdict was not wrong as a matter of law. That would only be the case if the jury, after reviewing the facts in evidence, found that Andrade was provoked to the point that he acted in a heat of passion. If you listen to the interview that Jack Ford held with the juror, the jury did not believe that Andrade was "provoked" by learning that Angie was a man at the time the Andrade committed the murder. In that case, it appears your argument is that the jury erred in weighing the evidence that was presented. Since they found that Andrade learned that Angie was a man at an earlier time, as found by the jury to be at minimum when Angie was called "Justin" by the court, your argument that the verdict was wrong as a matter of law is invalid. Your argument can only be that you disagree with how the jury, as the trier of fact, interpreted the evidence. I suspect that argument is made in every trial by the loser. Here, the evidence shows a clear "intent' to kill which was probably greatly enhanced by alcohol. The defense probably should have attempted a mitigation by voluntary intoxication, if anything.

I have to disagree with you Jami. Why is this murder victim's life more valuable than another?

Because this victim was transgender, this murderer gets more time? Why is that. Her life is/was no more important than any other victim that this animal might have killed.

If this had been a biological female, her life wouldn't be worth the additional years this animal is going to receive for the murder of this transgender female?

The way she lives her life doesn't make her life any more valuable than anyone else.

You can act like the fact that this man thought this was a female and then realizes she was a transgender female doesn't account for anything but it does.

If they are starting a relationship or having a sexual relationship with someone they have the responsibility to tell the other person the truth. If they are proud of who they are, then why would they hide it from their partner? Doesn't that person have the right to know the truth and then decide what they want to do?

Do they deserve to be lied to and tricked into a situation that if they had been told the truth they probably wouldn't have let happen.

Its sad that these cases end in murder but to pretend that they play no role in the consequences of their actions is just wrong.

Vickie, you points are well taken. If one can think of any time in their life where they were really angry, given a few minutes to ponder what they were considering doing or on how to react to their anger, they usually start farming multiple ideas in their head, and usually the tension level starts subsiding. This man is an evil man and justice has been served.

Jami, I have to disagree with your last word this time. Angie had her feet crossed when her sister discovered the body. According to her sister. " She always slept with her feet crossed." This might show that Andrade waited until she was asleep, walked over and picked up the fire extinguisher and committed the murder. He did not do it while she was standing and then pose the body to look like she was asleep, he would not have known to cross the feet.

I have to say I disagree with miss Floyd.

This guy to get life in proson without parole.

The jury did not even deliberate on the state-of-mind of the defendant, a required element for a 1st degree murder.

Allen Andrade, upon finding out that Angie Zapata is transgender and biologically a male, was controlled by rage, anger and humiliation for the entire time he killed the victim. At this point Angie Zapata was no longer a young 18 years old female in his mind. She was a deceitful male. She lied to him for three days, got him to do embarrassing and humiliating things that no straight man could endure, and being under the influence, he could not control himself.

I too feel that Justin (Angie) Zapata didn't deserve to die. I do believe; however, that the sentence was excessive. I believe both the victim, and the killer share equally in the responsibility of the death of Zapata. I personally viewed Zapata's profile on mocospace, and deception was apparent. Zapata did not reveal her sexuality, and in that I do believe Andrade was mislead. Do this justify murder, no, but I can understand out of control rage at that moment. I also feel the use of the fire extinguisher further confirms "without premeditation". A thought out plan of murder would include a less cumbersome weapon,

Whatever the degree......the victim is still dead. When will the
laws begin to uphold the rights of victims instead of the killers?

Murder is an inexcusable reaction even to the awful level of deception experienced within this relationship. Let us focus on the fact that is very important for all individuals to be upfront and truthful about issues of this nature when embarking on relationships. We don't know if the outcome would have been different if the truth was made available at the beginning. It is natural for this man to have responded with some show of emotion after learning the full truth of his lover's identity. We, as collective individuals within society, need to encourage a return to morality, commitment and truth within relationships.

I agree with you Jami, I don't think he should get life in prison...I hope he appeals because this is NOT first degree murder!!

Jami, your ignorance of TG issues is astounding.

As a journalist (and I mean only in the sense of journalism here), you should know that the Bible of editing, the AP Style Guide, says to ALWAYS use the pronoun of the gender the victim chose.

Of course it is never ok to be racist/homophobic/anti-semetic/etc. And nobody should ever die for any of those reasons. Andrade is a latent homosexual in my opinion. And that would circumvent second degree murder.

I totally agree with Jami, that this verdict was just wrong! this was clearly a heat of passion type of crime. I did not get to live my dream which was to be an attorney, a trial lawyer, that is, and had I got the education I would try to come up with some kind of legislature on the books that would allow some higher court to be able to step in when the jury gets it Wrong!

The evidence that he lay in wait was central to the case.

His testimony was that while the victim was away from the home he discovered photos showing the victm was a male; he waited for the victim to return; he immediately confirmed his suspicion upon the victiim's return and immediately upon confirmation killed the victim.

How is that not laying in wait? The fact of his rage and "passion" on the subject does not make it a "crime of passion" – that's just playing with words. Murder by "brutal beat down, inspired by hate" is not a "heat of passion" crime unless the muderer is so "heated up" he does not understand what he is doing. This guy understood what he was doing.

Unfortunately my work schedule did not allowme to follow this case other than the media. I did make an observation on Vickie's comment that causes a little confusion. She said that he attacked Angie while she slept. I seem to have read last week that he attacked after she had oral sex on him and he reached down and found that she had a penis. Another statement was that the fire extenguisher was not at hand and he had to walk over to it. A sign of premeditation would be the extenguisher located in his immediate vicinity. As Jami pointed out he is homophobic and I don't believe that he would have knowingly let Angie perform oral sex. I believe that in his rage is when he got the extenguisher and beat her with it. Yeah, I called Angie her and that's based on appearance. I think that the extinguisher was not a weapon of choice, or plan, but one of availability. All that happened afterwards are different offenses and if the case is not tried in whole then they should not have been considered admissable. The items I mention are tampering with a crime scene, theft (personal items), and theft (automobile) to name a few.

I agree that this was NOT 1st degree murder. I still do have questions about Andrade's sexuality though. The pink vibrator had only his DNA. I almost believe that he did do something that later he thought of and wanted to erase it. I dont believe that he went with Zapata to kill intentionally.

Andrade said" that gay things must die." He killed her while she slept. That is NOT heat of passion, Jamie. He is a latent homosexual. The pink vibrator had his dna all over it. Explain that away. He waited, drank, waited, drank. Angie got home went to bed was severely beaten, left for dead and when she got up, was severely beaten a SECOND time. Anyone who would be disgusted by TG people would have left long ago, and chalked it up to one of life's experiences. To drive a stolen car for weeks, and to give Angie's purse's away shows he was culpable of murder. He clearly thought that killing a TG person would give him less time. HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.

Does Jami not know the law? Premeditation happened when Andrade saw her still alive, and went over and killed her. Even if you decide to accept as pure truth every word from the defendant, and decide the initial beating was a crime of passion – after robbing the place, he noticed she was alive, and killed her. That's premeditation, clear and simple.

Jamie you are correct. This was a political , pc trial if there ever was one. The gays and transgendered folks sure are vocal and demanding for rights but when the people in California say no to gay marriage then they can't accept the rights and voice of the majority of citizens.Seems contradictory to me.

I hate this happened. the family warned the victim over and over again. Due to age/immaturity chose to not listen and it proved to be as they warned. The testimony was that the victim was supposidly careful, how can you be careful meeting someone on a website a few days before you go pick them up and bring them to you apt, with them not having any transportation. Come on this is playing russian roulette. This is so very sad. Please I hope more people will learn that you CANNOT TRUST random strangers. DO NOT BRING THEM INTO YOUR HOME. The defendant is an habitual offender wth a life sentence, 3 strike rule. He is instutionalized and he knows it. He knew he was going away for life. He did confess. He's gone back home.

I don't think this should have been prosecuted as a hate crime. I think Andrade killed Angie, so she wouldn't "rat him out" that he is bisexual. He was perusing a bisexual section of the site and the DNA on the vibrator, belonged to him. I think he had consensual anal sex and was afraid people would find out.

Jami-

"No lying in wait. No careful procurement of the murder weapon. No effort to hide the crime or get rid of the body."

Where did you study law? Afghanistan?

These things may serve to prove premeditation, but they are not required.

Isn't killing someone in their sleep "lying in wait"? He had to wait until she was asleep. Or, do you believe, he would have to been hidden in a dark corner, or something?

Getting up and going to get a fire extinguisher, is a procurement of a weapon. Or, do you believe, he would have had to sneak out and anonymously purchase the fire extinguisher from some guy selling them out of his trunk?

Nobody tried to hide Nicole Simpson's body. Or, do you believe, that if that killer is ever found, that wouldn't be a premeditated murder?

Dude who said Justin was asleep?

The fact that the deceased LIED about their very essence and soul doomed them from this earth. Imagine if you were a Jewish and you hooked up with a SS soldier that you knew hated Jews? What do you think would happen? Dont hate the player hate the game

I think that the victiom should have told him that she was really a he and i believe if he woulda done that than i think he would've still been living today.

D.L.

Who said it was awake?