They are following the letter of the law because it was murder. The DA is an a$$. It should have been plea bargained down.

I'm trying to find info on this case through Google but all I can find are blogs. I can't seem to find any actual news reports. That's odd.

I hope her lawyers appeal her case.

Tally, I did a search, too, and can't find anything. I searched Wikipedia, the Google News Archives, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Google and Bing, and nothing at all. At least, no primary news sources, just blogs and the like.

How do we know that this is a legitimate case? I don't know that it's not, but I haven't seen anything so far to make me think that it *is*.

I've thought for a long time there should be a national standard sentences for types of crimes. I read that, here in Minnesota a woman got 6-8 yrs for vehicle manslaughter. She chose to drive drunk and killed a pedestrian. Then there is a young man who could get 40 years for growing pot in his house. I am not condoning illegal drugs or growing or manufacturing them, but taking a life verses growing pot = 8 yrs or 40 yrs. interesting. Dottie

I googled too, and agree... something ain't right.

FREE SARA KRUZAN

This is a facebook page that might lead to more info. I haven't had the time to look it over more than two mins.

I put her name in a google search and got multiple hits, what were you looking for?

This does seem strange. A google search is saying that this happened in California. But it doesn't say in which county. Something just doesn't seem right. I'm not saying it didn't happen and I'm not saying it's right, but I am suspect that this is some type of hoax. I just can't figure out why. Interesting.

A shame!

Another angle...

Here is a link that might be useful: News

Check the name spelling. It appears to be Sarah Karzan and she grew up in Riverside CA. She appears to be around 29 now, I think, but again nothing on when this happened etc. I too think strange, but then with so many assults/murders in certain areas in some states, if everyone that happened was put in the papers, there would be room for nothing else. Sad situation.

Lots of stuff on the case if you check the deep web on juvenile justice. Here's one.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sarah

Well, this happened in 1994 which explains why there isn't any current news source. I did find this:

"This case is allegedly rife with instances in which the defense could have mounted opposition. An appeal for a writ of Habeas Corpus was denied. Assuming this was rejection was proper, the judgment may be sound even if a poor defense was offered. As a side note, Kruzan was offered a plea that included parole but against her attorneys advice she refused...Although this case has been denied by an Appeal, it is not beyond the scope of reason that it may be re-opened under any number of plausible errors."

Forgot to link my source:

Here is a link that might be useful: Inchoate Justice: Should We Reconsider Sarah Kruzan?

The point is she WAS offered a plea, her attorneys recommended it and SHE decided to roll the dice. Don't blame the prosecutor because she made a stupid decision. Although there's possibly some extenuating circumstances here, it still must be realized that you do not have the right to go to trial and then say, "I'll take the deal you offered before". If you choose door number 1 and get the "zonk", you can't go "Gee Monty, I'll take the $2000".

The DA did his job, probably rather zealously but nevertheless if someone were to turn down a good plea bargain I offered, I think I would try even harder to make the conviction too.

Our system is set up to overcharge people. I have problems with that, but that's the way it it. To me it's unfair to lay out a buffet of charges and say pick one or more of these when they often can only be convicted on one. But the limitations in the system demonstrate why pleas are so common and often should be looked at even at times to the compromise of principle, given what COULD happen if you're convicted.

I too have trouble with the inconsistency of things. Unintentional things often get harsher punishments than intended. Some peoples' lives are often valued higher than others. There's a lot of inconsistencies.

As I recall, they overcharge so that a different charge could be considered by the jury, i.e., if only Murder One was charged and the jury didn't think the evidence proved that charge, but perhaps a lesser charge, they couldn't come in with a lesser conviction unless it had been included in the indictment.