Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsTuesday, August 28, 2007 9:17 PM CDT
Comments Comments (47) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
LaGrone files appeal for sentence in Clinton drowning
By Edith Brady-Lunny
eblunny@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

SPRINGFIELD — Maurice LaGrone’s conviction for murdering his girlfriend’s three children should be reduced to involuntary manslaughter because of errors made during his 2006 trial, his lawyer argued in a brief filed with the 4th District Appellate Court.

LaGrone was convicted by a McLean County jury of drowning Christopher Hamm, 6; Austin Brown, 3; and Kyleigh Hamm, 23 months, in Clinton Lake in 2003. Amanda Hamm, the children’s mother, was in the car when it became submerged in the lake with LaGrone behind the wheel.

Hamm received a 10-year prison term after she was convicted of child endangerment last December.

Attorneys for LaGrone asked during his trial that the jury be allowed to consider involuntary manslaughter as a lesser element of the murder charge. Judge Stephen Peters turned down that request, leaving the jury to decide if LaGrone was innocent or guilty only of murder.

LaGrone testified that the car accidentally rolled into the lake after he parked it on a steep boat ramp, facing the water. Hamm’s boyfriend referred to himself as a coward for not trying harder to get the kids from the car after Hamm ran to a pay phone at the west-side boat access.

State Appellate Defender Stuart H. Shiffman, a retired Sangamon County judge, wrote the arguments on LaGrone’s behalf.

Hamm’s verdict

Hamm’s verdict on a substantially less serious offense should be considered by the appellate panel hearing LaGrone’s case, Shiffman argued.

“The inconsistent verdict on intent, in the context of these two trials, is a strong indication that jurors would have given consideration to a lesser included offense had one been presented in their deliberations,” Shiffman said.

He said the defense team of Jeff Justice and Tom Griffith should have asked for child endangerment as a possible jury consideration during the trial.

‘All or nothing’

Special prosecutor Ed Parkinson dismissed defense arguments that LaGrone did not receive a fair trial. He said the appellate decision will not turn on the issue of an involuntary manslaughter option.

The murder conviction should stand, said Parkinson, who served with Special Prosecutor Roger Simpson in both murder cases.

“It was all or nothing: Either it was an accident or it was first-degree murder. We believed he was guilty of the purposeful action of putting the car in the water,” Parkinson said.

Informants and character

The jury should not have heard testimony from several inmates who were housed with LaGrone in the DeWitt County jail, LaGrone’s defense lawyer said. He argued the court did not properly address questions about the reliability of inmate testimony.

The jury also heard numerous unflattering stories from witnesses about LaGrone’s previous actions, including domestic abuse, sexual advances he made to Hamm’s friends and drug use. The character testimony denied LaGrone a fair trial “by presenting to the jury an image of Mr. LaGrone as nothing more than a bad man who must have done something to contribute to the drowning deaths” of the children.

Testing results

The testimony of accident reconstruction expert Michael Varat could have corroborated LaGrone’s account of how the car went into the water, Shiffman argued, but a court ruling limited the testimony.

Varat’s tests re-created circumstances that put a car similar to Hamm’s very close to the location her car was found in the lake.

“In this closely contested trial, Michael Varat’s full and unfettered testimony may have carried substantial weight in jury deliberations,” LaGrone’s defense lawyer said.

Oral arguments have not been scheduled in LaGrone’s appeal.

Take a look
A member of Maurice LaGrone Jr., family leaves the McLean County Law & Justice Center after a jury found him guilty Tuesday, April 11, 2006 in Bloomington. (Pantagraph file photo/CARLOS T. MIRANDA)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 47 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

To People wrote on Aug 31, 2007 5:58 AM:

" Does it take two people to call 911? "

I think your wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:26 PM:

" memory is mistaken as the trial for Amanda Hamm took place in Macon County, not McLean County. Now would it you surprise you that despite damaging testimony and the strict instructions laid out for juries that they OFTEN make mistakes. Juries are a group of people doing the best they can, but that does not guarentee that they will take all of the evidence and hand down an appropriate decision. Often times their subjective viewpoints come into play. I truly believe that the jury just could not believe that a mother would want her children dead. But we all know that happens much too often. The jury overlooked her changing stories, her disregard for saving the children in a few feet of water..on and on. Not all trials result in an appropriate outcome. If you think they do, then you are very much mistaken. "

To: Sorry wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Actually, Hamm had a very UN-level playing field, actually. Remember, the trial was moved to McLean county, and her fate was decided by a jury of her peers, from McLean County. Judging from all the comments from the public, particularly the "super moms" who insist that child endangerment is the same thing as murder, and swear they would have died to save their kids, you would think she didn't have a chance in heck to beat this murder rap. But guess what? Juries are given a very strict set of rules and guidelines to follow when deciding if a person is guilty of Murder. Obviously of all the testimony, evidence, and lack thereof, it was enough to convince a jury from McLean County (where the majority of the population is hateful by nature) that she was NOT guilty of Murder, and WAS Guilty of Child Endangerment. Face the facts, she had an entire population against her, so the evidence presented by the Defense must have been pretty convincing that she would not have murdered her own children. "

Sorry wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:47 AM:

" but I still believe the mom got a slap on the hand. She sure got out of that rolling car quickly for someone that didn't know what was about to happen. I thought the first responders were able to merely walk in the water to get the children out. I bet Hamm has swam in water deeper than that. Yet she watched as her children drown. There is something completely unnatural about that response. In MN when the bridge collapsed, unrelated bystanders were risking their lives to help those whose cars where probably UNDER water. Hamm had a terrible time deciding on a story of the events that night as well. Finally, If she loved her children so much why was trying to get her mom to take them? She was not afraid of LaGrone as she was making plans w/him for the future. I do feel sometimes that there is not a level playing field when women go to court for serious crimes. (Remember the woman in the news recently that shot and killed her husband. She is already after serving a few months.) "

To: Clintonite wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:45 AM:

" And once again nobody is listening.... "

So annoying - Part Two wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:44 AM:

" She was a passenger, who may not have reacted the way the rest of us THINK we might have, but she did react quickly to run to the payphone - which even Lagrone's story backs up. It also came out in trial that for a moment, when she went to run to the car, he held her back. There is no evidence to say this is the case, but there is no evidence to suggest it is not, which presents us with more reasonable doubt, making it inappropriate to convict her of murder. Remember she was convicted of a heinous crime, which she does deserve and that is child endangerment, which the law says is a different crime, with a lesser punishment than murder. So, now that you can see that they played two different roles that night, you can understand why they would get different convictions and different punishments. "

So annoying - Part One wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:44 AM:

" When people make such ridiculous comments without even consideration given to evidence that was presented, and what all juries are regulated by LAW to consider when handing out convictions. It is NOT appropriate that they get the same punishment, because the EVIDENCE and WITNESS TESTIMONY asserts that they did NOT play the same role the night of the tragedy. HE was the driver. He showed some sort of intent when he admitted that he thought it was a possibility the car could go under. HE parked the car on the ramp. "

Katrasha wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:05 PM:

" I think Maurice should only get 14 months. That's fair for everybody. "

Fair Justice wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:58 PM:

" I hope his appeal goes through and he wins a FAIR TRAIL!!!!!! I he deseres a lighter sentence such as she got... "

Clintonite wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:22 PM:

" Once again I say, "Only in DimWitt County"! How amazing that these 2 adults who were in charge of those 3 innocent little souls that night can muster up the courage to seek help for themselves to live freely and not behind bars. Hum, I wonder why they couldn't muster up the courage that night to help save 3 little souls that would have liked to be alive and live freely today. 3 little angels didn't get a chance for help to be alive, neither should Lagrone and Hamm. You've (Court system) shoved them down our throats enough and cost us enough money in coourt costs Mr. Lawyers, so quit fighting for those 2 adult worthless nothings. That's what I consider them in my book! "

THANK YOU CONCERNED CITIZEN wrote on Aug 29, 2007 3:35 PM:

" and AMEN! "

steven wrote on Aug 29, 2007 3:14 PM:

" Why is it that the race card always has to be brought up? The verdict had nothing to do with Largone's race. It had to do with him putting three innocent children in a position that they did not survive. This verdict will not be overturned. If it is overturned, it would be a slap to the face of the children who lost there lives to soon. "

Concerned citizen wrote on Aug 29, 2007 2:48 PM:

" The real tragedy besides the death of 3 innocent children is that it took 3 years for this case to be brought to trial. It should have been in court much sooner so that Hamm and LaGrone could have a speedy trial. Neither one of them deserves an appeal. God will judge them for allowing 3 children to die needlessly. "

Pantagraph wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:58 PM:

" I know this will not get posted either but he was convicted by the pantagraph who only allow negative things to be brought to the light. Thanks Bloomington for showing your true colors "just because you took off the pointed hat don't mean the hate and prejudice no longer exist" "

Guilty of What wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:19 PM:

" Not murder since then a van slid off into that lake. I can not see this as intentional without a motive. Self preservation is not a motive for murder, because you can't accurately judge the situation until your in it. "

Interesting wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:11 PM:

" One of them got a fair trial and the other didn't. In one case the prosecution needed a motive, and in the other they didn't "Smoke weed and have sex" I can't believe an educated community like Bloomingtion could not see the prejudice in a motive like that. "

People wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:05 PM:

" No one failed to call 911, they were too busy calling 911 to help the children they turned to help in a panic. were you at the trail or are you just reading the news paper. "

Insane wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:54 PM:

" This is completely insane. Why wouldn't his past actions be considered?!? You think people who commit crimes like this just magically decide one day to kill someone?!? No...their past actions speak volumes to what they're really like. They should ALWAYS be considered in trials like this. The Americn Justice system really is messed up beyond belief. "

TO PEOPLE wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:35 PM:

" Your statement is understandable, LaGrone received a much deserved sentence. Hamm may have not warranted the same sentence but she should have definitely received more than a slap on the wrist, I didn't read where she was joined at the hip, or in leg irons and hand cuffed to LaGrone, why did she not leave him, or better yet if she wanted to stay in that situation, she should have put her children in a safer environment, here I also see, self perservation! "

People... wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:38 AM:

" are you mad?! Just because you feel the mother should have gotten a stiffer sentence does NOT mean that Lagrone should have his reduced. Where is the logic in that? Who drove the car and left it to fall in the lake? Lagrone. Who stood there and failed to call 911? Lagrone. Their actions were not equal. You want this guy out in 14 months because he sentence was too short? Ever heard of two wrongs don't make a right? "

They are not equally guilty wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:31 AM:

" He drove the boat on the ramp-he took a concrete step that caused this to happen. "

To: Equally to blame and everybody else wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:29 AM:

" You people keep forgetting that when handing down convictions and punishments, there are laws and rules juries have to follow. First Degree Murder has many aspects that have to be met in order for a person to be convicted of it beyond a reasonable doubt. Lagrone parked the car on the ramp knowing harm could come of it, by his own admission, showing a form of intent, and admitted to doing nothing while Hamm ran to a payphone. Now, on to Hamm....in her case, Murder 1 is not appropriate because there is no evidence to prove intent and witnesses for both sides admitted that Hamm appeared to be a good loving mother BEFORE the incident took place - raising doubts that she would plot to kill her kids, while Lagrone was abusive. Now, I realize many of you believe that she should get Murder 1 because she didn't do what we all say we would have done, but according to the law Murder 1 isn't appropriate here, Child Endangerment is a conviction more appropriate to her crime. "

zach wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:28 AM:

" this guy is mental "

I SEE FROM THE MOTHER wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:04 AM:

" Self perservation! NOT love for her children. The sad part of this true to life situation is that, this woman may be still (heaven forbid) be able to have more children, how undeserving. "

BOTH EQUALLY TO BLAME wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:34 AM:

" Mother should have been made to serve the idential sentence, most mother's have risked their own lives trying to save their children, even out of fear, what was wrong with her foot or even her hand that she could not put the brakes or even the emergency brake on? She Ran! "

MOTHER wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:21 AM:

" I am sorry but I am a mother of 3 How on earth are you going to sit in a car getting sone with the man that you are doing a relationship with and watch and wait for the car to go down in water and watch your children drown I think they both need the same time 10 yrs or life for the both of them.....She will come out and go back to doing what she was doing before until the next person comes along just this time she won't have children to watch drown. A true mother would have died with them trying to SAVE her children....go figure. "

Clinton Mom wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:03 AM:

" The justice system allows these appeals-its a fact of life. Its a protection for all of us. The terrible thing is that when she gets out she can have more kids. I hope she doesn't come back here. "

loving mother who lived for her kids? wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:53 AM:

" PLEASE! How loving could she have been after several reports from her children that this man stuck their heads in the ovens and pushed them down stairs.. If she was a loving mother, she would have thought about her kids then and not about herself, her kids would have been alive because she could have gotten them away from the situation, but she did not! "

Remember wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:26 AM:

" They are BOTH being punished for this. You people act like she got off scott free. Well, scott-free would be scott-free right? She is in prison, plus she has to live for the rest of her life remembering that her kids were probably wondering in their last moments why their mother didn't come to save them. It's absolutely heart-breaking, and that is a far worse punishment than prison. However, she IS in prison, and she WAS convicted of a horrible crime - child endangerment. It fits and is more appropriate than murder. Murder is when you intended all along for your kids to die and put the plan into motion. There was no evidence to prove that to be the case. She is a coward and a rotten human being for not doing more for her kids, but she did not put into motion the actions that caused the death of her children. Lagrone was the driver and the abusive boyfriend, while she was described as a loving mother who lived for her kids. Case Closed. "

Actually... wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:21 AM:

" LaGrone was convicted the way he was - differently from Hamm - because he essentially pulled the trigger. HE drove the car on the boat ramp and parked it there. As the operator of the vehicle, he did absolutely nothing but just watch the car sink, while Hamm ran to the payphone to call 911. Since her story sticks better than his - meaning even his version of the story has Hamm running for the payphone, and he admits to just standing there and doing nothing. She DID do something, although it wasn't as much as I or most devoted mothers would have, but she did run to the phone to call for help, and screamed to him to get the kids out. Most mothers would have jumped in the already sumberged car to save their kids, but being a coward doesn't make you a murderer. There was no proven intent in her case, she wasn't the driver, and her attorneys were able to provide enough reasonable doubt. End of story. "

Interesting wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:51 AM:

" It still boggles the mind that the mother of these poor children - the one person who should have been their protector - is sentenced for child endangerment, while the boyfriend - who was not related nor the primary care giver of the children - is sentenced for murder. "

Here we go.... wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:38 AM:

" Again "

SERIOUSLY? wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:35 AM:

" He should be thanking god that he didn't do this in Texas where they would have fried his butt no questions asked and no other option!!! He killed three innocent children and he's trying to get a lighter sentence! SERIOUSLY! Because of some mistakes in the trial give me a break BOO-FREAKIN-HOO!! He has a lot of nerve even considering a lighter sentence... "

Please wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:22 AM:

" This is just sickening! He deserves the sentence he got. She got lucky. The two of them should be sitting side-by-side doing the same amount of time....LIFE! They took the lives of three little kids. They don't deserve a life of their own. Hopefully, our justice system will uphold the the sentence. "

i don't wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:17 AM:

" blame him. if Hamm only gets 10 years and for good behavior gets out in what did they say like 14 months? why then should he be in for life when he is 50% to blame. seems they both should have the same sentence to me. "

ONLY IN AMERICA- wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:05 AM:

" Attorney's- Let's play the game... the car rolls into the lake Mr. Lagrone being the MAN he is sit's and watches as children die along with the children's fine outstanding mother. Neither one of them HELPED THE CHILDREN escape death. Anyone in their right mind would have helped, so YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE for their deaths. Some people in this world might believe the stupid story they made up however the jury didn't and found them guilty. The problem with this whole case is the attorney's are making money hand over fist to protect child killers and the public is paying the bills. THE DUMBING OF AMERICA CONTINUES- I'm supprised no one has blamed Bush for this yet..... "

More $ wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:46 AM:

" Great lets spend more or our $ "

the mother should do more time wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:44 AM:

" He is guilty but their mother is due to be out of prison in like Jan 08.. why should he do life when the 1 person who was to protect them for life is only serving 14 mths. They should both due time! "

errrrr wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:01 AM:

" Can we file a motion that will bring the three little kids back? Let the two rot in jail. "

SEEMS LIKE wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:37 AM:

" The Pantagraph is not printing too many comments, I think the pantagraph is unable to print most of them, this is a pretty hot button issue. this man was convicted of killing three children and because the prosecution wasn't politically correct, he gets redone and probably let out sooner. Remember David Hendricks?! The police are not looking for the killers of his family, they say they had the right guy the first time. "

I wonder wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:06 AM:

" how moreece likes Bubba..... "

Ted wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:02 AM:

" She got a slap on the wrist, why shouldn't he? "

Un Justice wrote on Aug 29, 2007 5:04 AM:

" The mother was there too, could she not put on the brakes or anything to save her children. It is wrong to blame just one, when they both were there at the same place and the same time. "

The law must protect.. wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:40 AM:

" the PERPETRATORS of the violence now. After all, LaGrone got LESS time than Hamm did for this and he has a RIGHT TO APPEAL IT. I hope he wins the appeal. Amanda is no better than he is. After all, they were HER children and WHAT DID SHE DO TO SAVE THEM? Before anyone jumps on me for this comment - I am a white female and I am not a resident of IL at this time and I have NO connection whatsoever with Hamm or LaGrone. I just think LaGrone was 'ripped a new one' on this deal. "

who wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:57 PM:

" does the law protect?? "

title? wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:20 PM:

" the lawyer just filed the motion for it to be reduced, right? it hasn't been actually reduced yet? "

Oh great... wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:07 PM:

" This is nice. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Top of Page | Home | News | Sports | Free Time | Life | Money | Nation/World | Opinion | Blogs/Columns | Archives | Site Map | RSS
Weather | Calendar | Obituaries | Classifieds | Jobs | Autos | Homes | Rentals | Coupons
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2009, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy