Seems Durham's a bit impetuous. He likes ice cream, apparently, because back in 2006 he decided to enter the ice cream business. So he ordered an ice cream truck, but when he later changed his mind, the company wouldn't refund the $18,000 he paid for it. So Durham drove across the country and ended up shooting and killing an employee of the ice cream truck company.
Durham agreed to a life sentence and plead guilty to murder in August of 2008. And what did he get in return for saving the state a trial? The prosecutors promised him a meal of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Popeye's Chicken, mashed potatoes, coleslaw, carrot cake, and ice cream.
Yes, Durham sold his freedom for a nice tasty fried chicken meal — with ice cream, of course. After all, ice cream's what got him into trouble in the first place.
In fact, the prosecutors weren't totally heartless: they also promised Durham one more feast, one with an Italian theme this time. The second meal will include calzones, lasagna, pizza, and — you guessed it — more ice cream. So I suppose, on the one hand, that Durham got a slightly better deal than Esau did — he got two meals. On the other hand, Esau never went to jail for thirty years, and Durham will serve at least that many years before parole.
The judge in the case approved the plea as it will save the state the cost of the trial and appeals.
What's the lesson here? For prosecutors: find that lever your criminal defendants may be susceptible to! Getting a guilty plea on murder for the cost of a fast food meal is a steal. As for defense attorneys, if you are reduced to bargaining over whether your client gets one or two meals, the case is done. Forget about winning.
This, of course, is why prosecutors sometimes have a better job. Imagine being the poor guy who had to defend Durham. When your client stinks, there's not much you can do to save his hide.
