Court upholds Auman's conviction
By The Associated Press
September 26, 2002

A woman who was in police custody at the time a Denver police officer was shot to death in 1997 was properly convicted of felony murder in the slaying, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled today.

A panel of appeals judges, in a 2-1 decision, said the trial court correctly interpreted the state's felony murder laws in the case of Lisl Auman, who was sentenced to life in prison in the shooting death of officer Bruce VanderJagt. The ruling also upheld her convictions on several other charges, including burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary.

Her attorneys had told the appeals judges earlier this year that she should not have been convicted of felony murder because the judge had misunderstood the law and given the jury bad instructions on how to weigh evidence. They also argued that the judge wanted a quick verdict because of publicity surrounding the case.

While Auman was in custody at the time VanderJagt was shot, the jury in her 1998 trial determined she set in motion a chain of events that led to his killing.

Prosecutors had argued that Auman was ultimately responsible for VanderJagt's death because she had recruited his killer, Matthaeus Jaehnig, and three others to break into her ex-boyfriend's apartment the same day.

After a passer-by called police to report the break-in, Jaehnig led police on a high-speed chase, when he shot at sheriff's officials while Auman allegedly helped steer the car.

The chase ended at a condominium complex miles away. Police said Auman handed Jaehnig the semiautomatic gun he then used to shoot VanderJagt. Jaehnig then killed himself with VanderJagt's gun.

Auman was taken into custody as she fled the car before the shooting occurred.

The state's felony murder law allows a jury to find a defendant guilty of first-degree murder if another person is killed as they try to commit a crime or flee a crime, even if the defendant did not have a direct hand in the death.

The appeals court said previous rulings in similar cases have determined that any member of a group of people involved in felony criminal acts that include a killing is guilty of felony murder.

"And we share the Supreme Court's view that 'the possibility of bloodshed is inherent in the commission of any violent felony and this possibility is generally foreseeable and foreseen; it is one principal reason that felons arm themselves,"' the ruling said.

The ruling also said that Auman's arrest, which occurred before VanderJagt's killing, did not serve to end the underlying felony of burglary. The judges said intent to commit burglary, rather than intent to kill, made Auman partly responsible for the killing.

The ruling, which rejected almost all of Auman's claims of errors made during her trial, also said there was no error in the instructions given to the jury, noting that Auman's attorneys did not object to the proposed instructions during the trial. While the trial judge made three errors, they errors were not sufficient to overturn Auman's convictions, the ruling said.

Auman's cause has been taken up by celebrities including journalist Hunter Thompson and singer Warren Zevon. Groups including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have said the case highlights the vagueness of the felony murder statute and the possibility the law can be abused.

Attorney General Ken Salazar said he was pleased the ruling affirmed the law.

"The undeniable facts of the case are that Auman's actions in conjunction with those of her fellow criminal accomplices led to a murder. Under Colorado law, Auman is responsible for that murder," he said. "Colorado's longstanding felony murder law, under which Auman was convicted, is clear and straightforward."


[url]http://www.lisl.com/[/url]

[img]http://www.lisl.com/images/lisl1.jpg[/img]

Sounds like she got what she deserved.  No problem here.

Sgtar15

It is nice to live in Colorado, we put our criminals in jail. [;)]

Hang da bitch
[smash]

Why do I get the feeling that all this fuss is because she is a cute white girl?

Thats got to be why Kar98 posted that pic.

I doubt that anyone would go to bat for this case if it was a young black man.

OK, it's only a dream, but assuming the cop had a family, they should be allowed to use that same gun on her.  I'd rather not go into detail about how I'd take care of the job.

The little creep may look all sweet in that picture, but you think she looked like that when she gave the shooter the gun?

The web site is a joke -  just what we need, a female Mumia.

So are they gonna execute that cop killer mummy or what?

I am familiar with this case as Lisl Auman on the old Ak47 board took her name as his moniker
to create exposure for her case.  Is Kar98 the old Lisl?  [:)]

He confused the hell out of me and plenty of other people thinking he was really lisl
posting from the pen.  ak47.com..  Those were the days..[;)]

This is a more up to date picture from her web page


[img]http://www.lisl.com/images/lislbtn.gif[/img]




[img]http://www.lisl.com/images/lisl_1100_sml.gif[/img]

and what she looked like after she was arrested

Felony murder has long been the rule.

Damn straight.  I've met some real cuties that I would [b]never[/b] turn my back on.  Down in the pit of your stomach (maybe lower...), one might feel bad for her, but it'll pass.

......except for the same liberals that went to bat for her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
any member of a group of people involved in felony criminal acts that include a killing is guilty of felony murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is the victim also guilty of felony murder?  (he was involved...after all, no?)

The name VanderJagt is definitely Dutch.

Sucks to be her.  I think sympathy should be looked for elsewhere.

I can't say I feel sorry for her at all.  She was involved in the events that lead to the cop killing.  Too bad she won't fry.

Lay down with dogs...get up with life in prison!!! [smash]

JUSTICE IS SERVED !

Felony Murder. No problem here, she did the crime, now she has to do the time. The law works  some of the time.
Florida is a Felony Murder state as well,
Say you're in a gang and 5 of you hold me up,  you have the gun and I shoot 4 of you who don't have guns, your Lorcin misfires & jams. Justified, you bet! And you are going to jail for the murder of your 4 thug friends. To bad, so sad!

Some of you are to quick to condem her without knowing the story...


[url]http://www.coloradowoman.com/lislauman.html[/url]

Take the time to read it..  you might see it a little differently   [rolleyes]

Now she can look forward to a lifetime of SODOMY, courtesy of a bunch of angry, mean, criminally convicted, lesbians who find her attractive.

Yes I can condemn her, and yes, I've read that flight of fantasy on the website.

The only thing I would have done differently is given her the death penalty.

She's had a multitude of appeals,  she's still convicted.  Lifes tough when you're a filthy murdering scum.

I read it and don't see this situation any differently. The story is a bunch a rationalizations, contradictions, and likely outright lies. Let the bitch rot in jail.

So most of you guys are ok with someone being convicted of murder for a murder they didn't commit?  I hate that liberal logic.  How long before gun owners are held to the same standard?  "But I didn't kill the guy," said the gun owner.  "Your gun killed him," said the prosecutor.  "I wasn't even there," said the gun owner. "Guilty," says the judge.  You can argue "that's just won't happen," but people are already being put in jail for the actions of others.z

By your so called logic, somebody can hire a hit man to kill you and you're family and they wouldn't be considered guilty because it was the hitman who did it, not them.

She had the idea of breaking into her x-BF's apartment.
She recruited the killer.
She gave the killer the gun he used to kill the cop, and since she gave it to him during a high speed chase there's no way anybody could say that she didn't know what it was going to be used for.

She's an evil bitch and I feel safer knowing that she's off the streets.

She didn't commit the murder. She did sent in motion the circumstances that lead to the murder. There's nothing liberal about demanding a person be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. If she hadn't solicited help in breaking into an ex-boyfriends apartment, the officer wouldn't have been killed that day.

Say you plan a bank robbery and tell all your accomplices you don't want anyone hurt and say to use fake guns. If one of them brings along a real gun and shoots and kills the bank guard, you were a party to the murder because you were party to a crime where a murder was committed.  Even though you didn't pull the trigger, your actions contributed to the murder, and you should be held responsible for it.

If lisl auman was a leather-faced, toothless crack whore who did the same thing, the sympathy level for her would be zero.

Okay, so if I read this right, suppose I am driving to work one morning and I cut somebody off.  That person gets all pissed off (he's already edgy because he didn't have time for a shower or a cup of coffee).  This pissed off person gets to the next light where there are pedestrians crossing the street.  The light turns green, but the slow peds are still in the intersection. In a fit of rage, he guns the accelerator and runs them down, killing a mother and her two children.

Now, by the logic used in that case, I'm guilty of murder because I set the chain of events into motion.

What a fucking bunch of crap that is!

Ahh, Grasshoppa, yoo ahre too easilee suede in da wong diwection...

Look at the obvious from the article-


completely contradictory to something a few lines later-



Hmm, I wonder which one is the lie???

Only problem I have with this is...

She will not get the needle...

Guilty is Guilty.

Well, there is something crappy there, and it's how your argument doesn't match the facts of the case.

She solicited help in committing a crime (B&E the ex-boyfriends apartment). During the crime, someone was killed. She was a participant in a crime during which a murder occurred.

Your argument doesn't mention you and the other driver working together to commit a crime. You didn't know him, never had any contact with him, and during your regular communte you happened to cut him off. He goes nuts and kills some people. You didn't work together on a crime that resulted in a death.

Now if you we both got together and illegally drag raced each other on a busy street and someone gets killed, then yes, you are responsible. Because while you were breaking the law with another party, that other party committed murder (or at least unintentional homicide).

If you're going to make a comparison, at least match up the circumstances correctly.

Trick, you DID NOT read that right... At all... I mean that analogy is just sad.

It is called felony murder. If while in the act of committing a felony, a person is killed, even a co-conspirator, you are held responsible for that death. Rightly so.

You rob a bank and your partner caps a guy; you may as well have pulled the trigger.

You lead an officer in a pursuit. Assuming that is a felony in your state, you hit and kill a passer by, or the officer hits and kills a passer by; you are responsible.

You plan a burglary with someone; your partner shoots a cop, you too are responsible. Get it? Simple, ain't it?

It is called accountability. It is a good law.

I find it difficult to feel sorry for her.

Hang around scumbags and SHTF is bound to happen.

See my point?  Now someone is saying you are responsible for the way someone else drives.  I believe in personal responsibility.  I'm responsible for what I do, and someone else is responsible for what they do.  Holding me responsible for someone else's actions?  Well...  How long before this type of attitude ends-up costing us gun owners more rights?z

What's up?  Don't people from the Carolinas have a clue?

It won't. The only thing that can cost us our rights is abdicating responsibility. Again, she initiated a criminal act which led to someone being murdered.

If she went out on a date with the guy, saw a movie and ate a pizza together, and while driving home, he kills a cop, she's just an innoncent bystander. That's not what happened though. She solicited help in committing a criminal act. That act led to someone's murder. So she led to that person's murder via another crime.

To relate it to guns:
If a dealer sells a gun to a law abiding citizen, following all laws, and that person kills someone next week, the dealer is not responsible.

If the dealer knows the person is a convicted violent felon and plans to rob a bank with that gun, and during the roberry kills someone, the dealer IS responsible.

Is it that hard to make a distinction? One isn't a criminal act, one is. What she was doing involved another criminal act, and that lead to a murder. Her actions of initiating the original criminal act lead to the murder, so she bears responsibility for the murder that occurred during (the 'getaway' is still part of the crime) and as a result of the criminal act.

Simple. Illegal Action= Criminal Responsibility. Legal Action = No Criminal Responsibility. What type of action did she initiate????

yeah.. well, heres one , a theft in progress  where an old man, gets involved and dies of heart attack?   thief now guilty of felony murder?? [rolleyes]


[url]http://www.westword.com/issues/20000420/news2.html[/url]

Murder by Death
What happens when you didn't mean it?
BY JULIET WITTMAN


In charging a petty thief who attempted to rob a Safeway with felony murder, Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter is making use of one of a DA's handiest tools. He's also stretching the definition of felony murder as far as it will go -- and possibly further. In March, Kenneth Mackey pulled the hood of his sweatshirt over his head and a scarf over his mouth and walked into the Safeway at East Evans Avenue and South Downing Street. He went behind the service desk, pushed the clerk aside and stole money from the cash drawer. Before he could escape, four customers wrestled him to the floor. One of the customers, 69-year-old Frank Scalise, collapsed when police arrived and later died at the hospital. These are punitive times. Because of a general and uneasy sense of lawlessness and random violence, the public has demanded strong measures against crime, and the ideal of rehabilitation has given way to one of punishment. In this climate, the felony murder law is profoundly helpful to prosecutors and police. It says that if someone is killed during the commission of one of a specific group of felonies or the flight from that crime, the perpetrator and his accomplices are all equally guilty of murder, whether or not the death was intended.

continues .... see web page above

Does this mean Teddy K. and his running dogs that helped cover the drowning murder of Mary Jo K. get retried for 'murder 1' ? I believe he lost his license for three years...Something is rotten here.... Two standards of justice here, one for the rich and one for the rest of us peasants.
   Another question. Is the killing of a police officer worse than killing and cover-up of a 20 year old girl ?

Fire for effect!
                                   Gib

PS: I have worked a line police officer in the military. So don't construe this as a cop flame.

She asked a remote acquaintance of her to assist her fetching some of her stuff out of her estranged boyfriend's apartment.

Now she could have been smarter in choosing her acquaintances, but if stupidity was a capital offense, 90% of the ar15.com users would be on death row.

Over and frigging out.

This is a classic example of felony murder. Yes! the thief is guilty of felony-murder! Lets say I get a gun, go to the quicky mart, and say "give me the cash, or I'll shoot you." the guy drops dead of a heart attack. this is felony murder! My act of placing the clerk in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death both directly and proximately caused his death!

Some people (not you realist) might have a problem with this if I was a sexy young woman. But if I was a black punk with corn-rows, those same people would have me fry. I say punish them all. [uzi]

I think the word we're looking for here is complicity---knowingly and willingly engaging in a felony crime.  Share the crime, share the guilt.

This has ALWAYS been the law in America, and in England, as well as most of the world.

One famous case involved a Dillinger-era bank robber.  His friends walked into a bank and stuck guns in the customers faces, while he was the wheelman outside.  An old man had a heart attack and died. He too was sentenced to the gas chamber for murder.

In the 1750's a British highwayman robbed a stage, rode to a tavern and passed the loot to a confederate who rode off to hide it. Later the bandit shot and killed a soldier who attempted to arrest him.
The confederate hanged with the highwayman.

The principle here is if a felony crime is committed, and someone dies WHO WOULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE DIED, or their death WAS CAUSED BY the crime, ALL those who participated in the crime are equally guilty.

This means that there must be WILLING and KNOWING participation in the crime.
i.e.: Somebody askes you to watch their car for a moment, and you don't know they're robbing a bank.  You are guilty of nothing, because you weren't knowlingly and willingly involved.

Case #2:  You're sitting outside a bank and a robber jumps in, points a gun at you, and orders to to drive him away.  You're not a WILLING participant.  No crime on your part.

However, for what ever reason you knowlingly or willingly engage in a situation that results in a death, you are just as guilty as the others involved.
Depending on the circumstances this can be man slaughter, or felony murder.

Bottom line:  This woman willingly and knowlingly was an active participant in a crime that escalated into the murder of a policeman.
The fact that she may not have intended it to turn into murder, and she didn't actually pull the trigger, in no way absolves her of the crime.
Under current "black letter" law that has existed for hundreds of years worldwide, she is just as guilty as the shooter.

The key words in this case are: Knowing, willing, and "otherwise wouldn't have died".

Looks like we have a lot of armchair lawyers here. This should really be in the "Legal Issues" forum.

Everyone here says "oh, she did something bad, so she gets what she deserves". Yeah, no shit. That's not the issue. The issue is whether she is guilty of felony murder as a principal (and not conspiracy or accessory). It's like saying "you ran a red light, so we're going to charge you with DUI and reckless driving"...and everyone on AR15.com cheers.

I think there is a legitimate question in this case. It's also not over yet, because chances are this will get reviewed by the appeals court en banc (the whole appeals court, not just a 3 judge panel) and then possibly the Colorado and then U.S. Supreme Courts.

We're all acquainted with *you*, aren't we?

Why do you give a fuck about this woman?  

What's your point?  Or are you hangin' out with Warren Zevon and Hunter Thompson again...?

I see no problem either.

Fairly simple concept, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

We have to teach these criminals a lesson you know.

Website quote:


So she thought she was automatically immune from any other crime commited after her detention even though she setup the chain of events?