Bonnie had a loving family who hired a wise-guy attorney to represent her. After discussing the case with her for a while the attorney asked Bonnie if she had been drunk whilst carrying out the robbery? She asked “What difference would that make?” He explained that if she had been drunk she could not have consented to the robbery. In effect she couldn’t be held responsible for her actions if she was drunk. Bonnie thought this was pretty dumb but anything that would get her off the hook sounded good. She asked her attorney to make sure that Clyde’s lawyer was wise to this line of defence. “Nah” he said. “This defence only works for women”.
The case went to court but the defence that Bonnie had been drunk and could not consent to robbery was unsuccessful. The judge instructed the Jury that unless there was prima facie evidence that Bonnie had been drunk at the time of the robbery they should ignore this line of defence. It was also prejudiced by evidence given earlier by Clyde, where he happened to mention that Bonny only drank soda pop.
However the wise guy attorney was not known as a wise guy for nothing. He entered a plea, on Bonnie’s behalf, that she had been groomed by Clyde and thus could not be held responsible for her actions. This defence was accepted by the jury who observed that Bonnie was a vulnerable woman. Bonnie was released on the provision that she checked into a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Bonnie agreed and checked in immediately.
Whilst in the hospital she met Iris (another patient) who recounted how, at the age of 59, she had been groomed by a 19-year-old boy. Iris related how she had handed over £50,000, which she had got from a couple of property developers, to the 19-year old-boy. Bonnie asked Iris what she had done for the developers in return for the £50,000? “Nothing” said Iris. “They just were old friends”. Bonnie was incredulous. “How can I get to meet those suckers?” she said.
Comments are closed.