Spain – convicted trans woman transferred to women’s prison after 11 years

This report (via Momento 24 and Typically Spanish) saddens and infuriates me in equal measure:

A transsexual who was sentenced in 1998 for raping a woman has now been transferred to the women’s section of Alhaurín de la Torre prison.

(Via Typically Spanish)

Spot the inconsistencies in the reporting there? “A transsexual”? I use the term transsexual as an adjective, not a noun, so straight away I’m seeing ungendering.

Diario Sur reports that the change in her cell was authorised by the Málaga Provincial Court, despite opposition from the prosecutors’ office, after it was verified that she figured as a woman in the civil registry.

In other words, it’s taken her 11 years to obtain the court’s recognition that she is legally a woman.

Also, the district attorney’s office contributes with “multiple medical reports” that reveal the repeated denial to submit him [sic] to an intervention of sex change after to be diagnosed with personality disorder in which “the alteration of the sexual identity is one more symptom and not a real transsexualism”.

(Via Momento 24)

Which seems to be saying that her assertion that she’s trans was rejected because the medical reports didn’t back it up. This is how medicine is used to define, pathologise and marginalise us.

Needless to say, the prosecution lawyers still don’t accept the decision:

The prosecutors’ office say the decision is ‘incoherent’ as the transsexual still has masculine genitals, and the victims of her crimes, a rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence, have always been women. They also note she has repeatedly refused to undergo a sex change operation.

(Via Typically Spanish)

I would argue that the incoherency arises from the way cis society views us, the nature/nurture dichotomy. The reference to her genitals I consider to be not only unnecessarily intrusive but also essentialist and fundamentally cissexist. In addition, there is a clear lack of understanding that trans people’s gender dissonance varies from person to person. Not all trans women consider surgery to be necessary to their successful management of their condition.

Note, also, the trans-misogynist implication that trans women are “really men”, and that only men carry out the crimes of which she has been convicted.

The Hearing argues that his [sic] genitals are “atrophic”, therefore he [sic] cannot be considering “an issue of danger”.

(Via Momento 24)

Interesting that the report quotes the word “atrophic”. I wonder if this is as a result of longer-term estrogen therapy. Note also the unspoken assumption that there is only penile rape.

The recluse, native of Línea de Concepcion, managed in 2008 to register himself [sic] with woman’s name and feminine sex in the Civil Record of San Fernando (Cadiz) and initiated the steps to obtain his [sic] transfer to the women’s jail.

(Via Momento 24)

So it took 10 years to obtain legal recognition of her gender identity – and a further year for the courts to reach their decision.

It’s deeply upsetting to learn that a trans woman has served 11 years in a cis men’s prison. I can’t even begin to imagine the damage that must have done to her. Apparently, for no other reason than that she’s trans, the authorities decided the statutory punishment wasn’t enough.

And it infuriates me that, in our so-called enlightened times, our politicians, law makers and enforcers are so ruled by their own irrational fears that they will happily subject trans women to such extremes of legitimised transphobic hatred and violence.

Seattle WA – trans woman attacked by a “group of teens”

Via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (link here), this report demonstrates only too well that transphobia and hate crimes know no age limits:

A group of teens beat a transgender person and threatened to kill her Saturday on Rainier Avenue, according to Seattle police.

[…]

A teenage boy was arrested and booked into the Youth Service Center for investigation of robbery and felony malicious harassment, the state’s hate crime law, according to police.

The teen told police he and his “homies” did not bother the victim until she solicited him for sex.

The usual assumption that all and any trans women are sex workers. This allegation doesn’t appear to have been proved anywhere but is still included in the police report as well as the media’s coverage.

The assault happened about 4:40 p.m. Saturday. When police arrived, several witnessed flagged them down, saying the suspects fled on a Metro bus.

Police stopped the coach near Rainier and South Andover Street. When the bus stopped, the teen who was arrested fled and was identified by a witness, police said.

Good that the police took prompt action. Bad that Officer Wayne Johnson’s report misgendered her so comprehensively:

The victim, in her 30s, told police “that as soon as the suspects got to him [sic], they started hitting and kicking him [sic] at the same time one of the (suspects) was attempting to take his [sic] backpack,” according to a police report.

The victim held onto her backpack and briefly got away. But she told police they charged again, knocking her to the ground. She said she heard a homophobic term said when she was being beaten, and one of the boys stated they were going to kill her.

“He [sic] also stated that he [sic] sometimes wears a skirt and he [sic] stated that he [sic] believes he [sic] was attacked because of this,” according to the heavily redacted report.

The victim did not suffer life-threatening injuries and declined medical attention at the scene.

The boy arrested, either 13 or 14, “was uncooperative in providing information regarding the identities of the other suspects involved in the incident,” Officer Wayne Johnson wrote in his report.

Is it really a surprise that cis society is inculcating its children to be as transphobic as its parents, when authority figures such as the police are sending out such mixed messages? From Officer Johnson’s report, it’s hard not to conclude that he holds views every bit as transphobic as the youths who carried out the attack.

And, when the law enforcement officers themselves insist on misgendering us in their official reports, what recourse to law do we as individuals really have, in a world where transphobic violence is obviously spiralling out of control? This year alone we’ve already seen reports of transphobic hate crimes being carried out directly by the police (Honduras, Idaho, U.S), as well as other cases where our attackers are left free to roam the streets by the authorities (Turkey).

If we can’t trust the authorities who are empowered to protect us; if they themselves make it so obvious that they have as much hate for us as our attackers, then who can we trust to defend us?

—————

Curtsey to Stefani for the heads-up

—————

Cross-posted at Questioning Transphobia

May 28 KRXQ radio show promotes violence vs trans children

Via YouTube, this news report carries the response from the Sacramento chapter of PFLAG to the “Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning” radio show on KRXQ-FM in Sacramento, California, during which hosts Rob Williams and Arnie States made remarks which included advocating child abuse of transgender children.

This report was broadcast on June 3, 2009 on KCRA-TV in Sacramento, CA, and was compiled by Carol Milazzo, M.D.

—————

Cross-posted at Questioning Transphobia

—————

Previous related posts:

• KRXQ-FM radio’s transphobic hate speech debacle (June 8, 2009)

KRXQ-FM radio’s transphobic hate speech debacle

This story’s been running now for almost a fortnight and still seems to be a long way from a satisfactory conclusion. The GLAAD blog has a detailed series of posts (start here; the page contains links to earlier posts) but briefly the sequence of events was as follows:

On 28 May, during the “Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning” radio show on KRXQ-FM in Sacramento, California, hosts Rob Williams and Arnie States made remarks which included advocating child abuse of transgender children.

Via GLAAD:

While discussing a recent story about a transgender child in Omaha, Nebraska and her parents’ decision to support her transition, the two hosts spent more than 30 minutes explicitly promoting child abuse of and making cruel, dehumanizing and defamatory comments toward transgender children.

[…]

Among the comments made by the hosts:

[…]

ARNIE STATES [13:27]: If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels.

ROB WILLIAMS [17:45]: Dawn, they are freaks. They are abnormal. Not because they’re girls trapped in boys bodies but because they have a mental disorder that needs to be somehow gotten out of them. That’s where therapy could help them.

ROB WILLIAMS [18:15]: Or because they were molested. You know a lot of times these transgenders were molested. And you need to work with them on that. The point is you don’t allow the behavior. You cure the cause!

ARNIE STATES [21:30]: You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’

ARNIE STATES [29:22]: You know, my favorite part about hearing these stories about the kids in high school, who the entire high school caters around, lets the boy wear the dress. I look forward to when they go out into society and society beats them down. And they end up in therapy.

The segment received hundreds of complaints and GLAAD issued a call to action on 2 June. As a result of the outcry, the hosts devoted their entire broadcast (on 3 June) to the subject. However, that follow-up broadcast completely failed to refer to trans children, neither was an apology forthcoming from the presenters. This failure to take into account the comments and complaints added to the controversy which, over the next several days prompted 10 companies to withdraw their advertising.

Conspicuous by its absence in any of the statements of the companies was any specific reference to the matter of the – I can only call it hate speech – which was directed at trans children. As far as I can tell, there was no mention of either ‘children’, ‘trans’ (or ‘transgender’, etc).

There was talk of ‘offensive’ and ‘inappropriate comments’ and the like; ‘diversity’ and even ‘equality’ but no condemnation of the specific language used. In terms of corporate responses, I suppose this was only to be expected. In such a litigious arena, companies will be very conservative in any public statements and it is arguably unrealistic to expect, say, an internationally known fast food company, motivated by profit, to also take on the role of provider of social justice. And even if such a thing was possible, I’m really not sure it would be desirable.

In addition, it’s interesting to note the parallels between the corporate response and an individual’s: if I don’t like the way I’m treated by a particular company, my only real, practical recourse is simply not to spend any more money there. And this, in effect, is what those ten corporations did when they withdrew their advertising.

However, from 4 June onwards companies did begin to withdraw their advertising, and at the same time, the story was picked up by bloggers, various community members and groups as well as mass media outlets, all of which added to the momentum.

Following the withdrawal of the tenth advertiser, a major fast food company, one of the presenters (Rob Williams) issued a 300 word statement on 7 June in which he admits that “WE HAVE SIMPLY FAILED ON ALMOST EVERY LEVEL”. Curiously, the statement has replaced all other material on the show’s website – including the MP3 recordings from the controversial show.

Of his failure even to apologise, Mr Williams adds:

THE WORD APOLOGY APPEARS NO WHERE IN THIS LETTER FOR A REASON. WE ALREADY HID FROM DOING THE RIGHT THING ONCE AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN. APOLOGIZING IN A WRITTEN, POSTED STATEMENT IS A FORM OF COWARDICE. WE WILL SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID THIS THURSDAY.

I’m really not sure where Mr Williams gets the idea that a written apology is somehow less valid than a spoken one, but regardless of the preferred format and in the face of this continuing refusal to apologise (why wait until Thursday?), it seems to me about the only thing left that needs to be said by Mr Williams and his co-presenters is, “we quit”.

Til Thursday then.

—————

ETA, 8 June: Two new developments:

1. Another company has cancelled their advertising deal with KRXQ
2. Arrangements are being made for Kim Pearson (Executive Director of Trans Youth Family Allies) and Autumn Sandeen (trans advocate and regular contributor to Pam’s House Blend) to take part in the broadcast on Thursday

More at the GLAAD blog

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia – May 17

Via IDAHO:

Each year, the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (the “IDAHO”, as it is usually called), will see actions and initiatives take place in many countries and contexts and on many different issues.

All these activities and initiatives are a very strong signal to all, decisions makers, public opinion, civil rights movements, human rights defenders, etc. throughout the world that our fights for our Rights as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, intersex, etc… is vibrant!

The Day provides all different kind of actors with a very powerful opportunity to express their demands and to advocate for their case. Each year also, the IDAHO aims at using the extra public, political and media attention that it provides at all levels to highlight one specific aspect of the struggle for sexual rights.

This year, we chose to highlight the often neglected but important issue of Transphobia.

Read the Appeal in English (PDF)

SIGN THE APPEAL

See the list of personalities already supporting the Appeal (PDF)

See the list of organisations that already support the Appeal (PDF)

Read our full media briefing (Word document)

Read our Media Release (PDF)

—————

Cross-posted at Questioning Transphobia

Lambda Istanbul granted permission to continue operating

In January, I wrote (link here) about the rejection by the Supreme Court of Appeals of a local court’s order that Lambda Istanbul (the Turkish LGBT solidarity organisation) be closed down for having objectives which were against Turkish “moral values and family structure”.

The case was then scheduled to return to the local court in Istanbul earlier this week, with the expectation that it would uphold the Supreme Court of Appeals’ decision. It seems that this has been the outcome, which is welcome news; however there is a sting in the tail.

By upholding the decision, this condition set by the Supreme Court has also been upheld:

Dissolution of the defendant association could still be demanded if it should act counter to its constitution, in the ways of encouraging or provoking gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transvestite behavior or acting with the aim of spreading such sexual orientations.

In my view, this is a truly inequitable condition imposed by the Supreme Court, born of the same paranoia-fuelled ignorance that led to the UK’s similarly repressive – albeit narrower in scope) Section 28 amendment to the Local Government Act 1988 (repealed in 2003) which stated that a local authority:

“shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”

Lambda has responded, saying it will only feel truly safe when the Turkish constitution is amended to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity:

(The) constitutional safeguard is a must to hinder any homophobic interpretations of those vague concepts in law such as ‘general morals’ or ‘social values’ by barristers, who suffer from the very same social prejudices as many others in society.

Given the apparently open season of violence towards trans people in Turkey, it should not need stating that such a constitutional safeguard should be implemented immediately.

—————

Previously related posts:

• Suspected murderer of trans rights activist arrested in Turkey (April 21, 2009)
• Every 15 days, another trans person is murdered in Turkey (April 14, 2009)
• The undeclared war against LGBTT people in Turkey continues (March 29, 2009)
• Another trans woman murdered in Turkey (March 14, 2009)
• Trans woman stabbed to death in Istanbul (March 12, 2009)
• Lambda Istanbul wins appeal against closure (January 28, 2009)
• Trans rights abuses in Turkey (November 29, 2008)

Qatar: TS/TG people – human beings or behavioural deviants?

Compared with certain other Arab states – Saudi Arabia, for example – Qatar might appear to have relatively liberal laws, even though it’s still not as liberal as some other Persian Gulf countries. However, since the mid-1990s, Qatar has been undergoing a period of liberalisation and modernisation which brought many positive changes. For example, Qatar became the first Arab country of the Persian Gulf to extend suffrage to women. Nevertheless, the country still lags behind the UAE or Bahrain in terms of more westernised laws and though plans are being made for more development, the government is cautious. (Via Wikipedia)

Regrettably, with regard to TS/TG people, in some areas this caution seems to manifest itself in a rather old-fashioned but nonetheless toxic form of transphobia, as can been seen from a recent report in the Gulf Times (link here):

[…] Dr Saif al-Hajari, the deputy chairperson of Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, described the emerging trend of “manly women” and “womanly men” as a “foreign trend” which, he said, had invaded the Qatari and Gulf communities as part of the “globalisation winds”.

Interestingly, the terms ‘manly women’ and ‘womanly men’ could have come straight from the pages of a reparative therapist’s manual and they are almost common currency amongst those transphobic cis women radical feminists who, believing that gender is absolutely a social construct, insist that trans people can only be deluded dupes and pawns of the patriarchy for undergoing medical transition when all we really need is a good talking-to, and perhaps a nice cup of tea.

And, at the same time as Dr Saif al-Hajari talks of the ‘globalisation winds’ that have ‘invaded’ the country, the Qatar Foundation’s own website (link here) makes much of its mission to prepare the people of Qatar and the region to meet the challenges of an ever-changing world.

There’s more than a hint of small-c conservatism about Dr Saif al-Hajari’s words, which seem curiously at odds with the wider trend towards a more liberalised society. And the rest of his comments don’t inspire confidence that he thinks TS/TG people should be treated fairly and with respect:

“This is an issue which can harm all our social and religious values.”

I would suggest that a society whose social and religious values can be threatened – in an unspecified way – by a tiny minority of people who self-identify in a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth, is a society which has far deeper fissures in its foundations than anything that could be caused by the existence of TS/TG people.

“It needs some sort of bravery to address it.”

Oh please, Doctor: just listen to yourself. Perhaps if you did some work on the subject, you would realise that the real bravery is exhibited by those TS/TG people who live in another gender role, in a country where kneejerk transphobic reactions – like yours – are not only tolerated, but given airtime on national television.

“I have never imagined that one day I can see such behavioural deviations in our streets, schools or universities.”

This is simply a rather embarrassing display of an irrational fear of any gender presentation that exists outside a rigidly defined, artificial – and, frankly, archaic – binary. ‘Behavioural deviations’, indeed. Such things are defined by human beings and can easily be redefined to include, as to exclude. From where I sit, the phrase ‘behavioural deviations’ comes very close to hate speech, and is all the more cause for concern when it emanates from a country with a long and proud history of interacting with a multitude of races, peoples, languages and religions.

Not content with out-and-out transphobic hate speech, Dr Saif al-Hajari then proceeds to introduce xenophobia and paranoia into his arguments:

“These cases of behavioural deviations we have are not working alone. They co-ordinate with similar groups on regional and international levels,” he added.

The implication seems to be that there is some sort of international conspiracy to influence otherwise fine, upstanding, morally correct citizens into becoming some sort of threat to the established order by means of questioning their gender identity and presentation. Even a moment’s research would expose this assertion for the laughable fallacy that it represents. We transition to survive; not to overthrow governments.

To a question whether foreign education institutes established in Qatar are responsible for the spread of the phenomenon, Dr al-Hajari said that Qatar Foundation, which is the umbrella of foreign universities in Qatar, should set up a mechanism to protect young people in such universities from “invading behaviours”.

“We need to educate the administrative and teaching staff of these [foreign education institutes] on the special traits of our society.”

Hmm. Socio-cultural rehabilitation, anyone?

We are expected to accept the phrase ‘the special traits of our society’ without question. I’d be very interested to know how Dr Saif al-Hajari defines those ‘special traits’, and where he obtains his authority to make such definitions.

As for “invading behaviours” – has Dr Saif al-Hajari never heard of mukhannathun? There have been TS/TG people across the Arabian Peninsula – across the entire world – for as long as there have been humans. This is not a new phenomenon, a ‘trend’ to be reversed or a conspiracy to be repressed: it is an established and internationally recognised condition with a considerable body of medical evidence to support its existence.

“Some foreign schools and universities hire staff hailing from communities that do not see any problem in what we think of as deviations. This is a problem that should be dealt with.”

Again, it is unclear precisely why Dr al-Hajari believes that TS/TG people are a ‘problem’ to be ‘dealt with’.

It must surely be a matter of concern for anyone with even a passing interest in equality and human rights that such a forward-looking country should apparently tolerate such regressive and repressive views being expressed by so senior a person as the deputy chair of one of Qatar’s best known private, chartered, non-profit organisations. Dr al-Hajari, it is time to leave behind these proposals for the inhuman treatment of gender variant people – you may not understand us, but you can at least accept us as the fellow and equal human beings we are, in all our glorious diversity.

Cis man makes offensive “joke” then complains about consequent police warning

Via the Daily Telegraph (link here) comes a story of offensive cluelessness on the part of pretty much all concerned – including the journalist.

A Conservative councillor claims he was questioned by police for two hours after making a light hearted comment in response to a question about transexuals.

First display of cluelessness. Why only a single ‘s’ in ‘transexuals’ (sic)?

Jonathan Yardley, 48, was told there had been a complaint about his remark and was asked if he was homophobic or had made a “hate comment”.

He had been chairing a quarterly meeting arranged by West Midlands Police at which members of the public can discuss crime.

It started with a presentation with members of the audience given a handset to allow them to select answers to questions flashed up on a screen.

A police authority worker who was acting as presenter then told them: “Let’s start with an easy question to get us going: Press A if you’re male or B if you’re female.”

Second display of cluelessness.

Why was it necessary to open a public meeting about crime with a question about gender identification? A question which assumes that all present are binary identified?

One member of the audience in Wolverhamtpon responded by asking: “What if you’re transgendered?”

Mr Yardley, a quantity surveyor, who is married with a 13 year old daughter, said: “I quipped that you could press A and B together. There was much laughter.”

Third display of cluelessness. Epic, offensive cluelessness.

Unbeknown to him there was a man dressed as a woman in the audience whose male partner had raised the question.

Fourth display of cluelessness, the second from the journalist – an essentialist assumption passed off as factual reportage. “A man dressed as a woman”? What does that even mean – and how would the journalist know anyway?

Mr Yardley, Wolverhampton city council’s cabinet member for neighbourhoods and safer communities, said: “Several days later a complaint of homophobia was made. I was asked to go to the local police station, questioned for two hours by a sergeant and an inspector and let off with a warning.

Homophobia, yes. Transphobia, too, it seems.

“I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. They explained the legal process and what had happened and how the complaint had been made and they said I could be subject to a civil prosecution.

“There are much more important issues that the police should be spending their time on. I have so much trouble with crime and anti-social behaviour in my ward. I’m not homophobic, I just said it as a joke. It’s a sign of the times we live in, you can’t make jokes any more.”

Fifth display of cluelessness, and a special guest appearance by the “political correctness gone mad” faction. Kai Chang deconstructed that particular meme with style and aplomb a long time ago. Mr Yardley would do well to read it – The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of “Political Correctness” (link here)

Because, you see, Mr Yardley, you can make jokes. But it helps if they’re (a) not at the expense of an already marginalised minority and, (b) amusing. Unless you actually want people to think of you as an ignorant bigot, of course.

This whole story exemplifies the almost subliminal and systemic transphobia to which trans people are routinely subjected, day in, day out. “Jokes” like Mr Yardley’s are every bit as hurtful and offensive as all the other forms of hate speech spat at us by small-minded bigots everywhere, every time we have the temerity to enter any space predominantly occupied by cis people.

“A joke”, you say, Mr Yardley? Well, I ain’t laughing.

Serbian government amends antidiscrimination bill

Via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:

BELGRADE (Reuters) — The Serbian government has said it had amended an antdiscrimination bill following requests from key religious communities, but that the draft still met international standards.

The bill, which now goes to parliament, is a key precondition for Serbia to join the European Union and its visa-free regime.

The original draft had sparked criticism from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religious communities over stipulations that ban discrimination of homosexuals and transgender people.

“We have reached a good law, which eliminates discrimination and is in line with international standards,” Rasim Ljajic, Serbia’s labor minister, told a news conference. “I cannot say that religious communities will be too happy.”

Prompted by protests from the top clergy, the government last week withdrew the bill from the parliamentary procedure.

“The disputed article on sexual orientation is part of European standards,” Ljajic said. “This is an umbrella law banning discrimination, not a law protecting any single social group.”

Ljajic said the wording of the controversial Articles 18 and 21 had been altered, “but not the essence of the law”.

The amended draft now says that the conduct of priests and religious officials against homosexuals will not be treated as discriminatory, if it is in keeping with church doctrine, faith, or the purpose of a church or a religious community.

Human rights watchdogs strongly opposed the withdrawal of the draft from parliament, arguing that religious communities were meddling in state affairs and sexual minorities would face discrimination.

Under the Serbian Constitution, religious communities are separated from the state, but top clergy from the Orthodox Church often influence political decisions.

The 250-seat parliament will discuss the draft law at its next session, scheduled for next week.

————

Previous related posts on this blog:

• Trans woman murdered in Belgrade (January 20, 2009)

Judge to rule on confession in Angie Zapata killing

The court case in connection with the murder last year of Angie Zapata continues slowly towards the trial date of April 14. On Friday (March 5), the District Judge, Marcello Kopcow, presided over a pretrial hearing and his decision – due next week – seems likely to decide the legal path of the trial itself.

A crucial aspect of the case is now whether the suspect’s confession will be allowed in court.

The accused, a cis man named Allen Andrade, is charged with first-degree murder, a bias-motivated (hate) crime, aggravated motor vehicle theft and identity theft, following the discovery of Angie Zapata in her apartment in July 2008. Mr Andrade was subsequently arrested almost two weeks later while driving Ms Zapata’s car. During questioning by Greeley Police, Mr Andrade said he hit Ms Zapata with a fire extinguisher, and later, when she started to wake up, he hit her several more times until she died.

Via the Greeley Tribune:

But the interrogation session may have been tainted, according to the attorneys representing Andrade. The report by [Detective Greg] Tharp shows that at one point in the session, Andrade lowered his head to the table and said “No, no, no.”

Later, when the detective told Andrade there was two sides to every story, Andrade replied, “Yeah, I’m done, though. He later said “I’m done. Yeah. I’m not talking right now.”

Although Detective Tharp continued to question Andrade, not believing he wanted an attorney, the later confession could be thrown out because of Andrade saying he was through talking.

[…]

Said defense attorney Annette Kundelius: “When Mr. Andrade made those statements, he was very sleepy, had been in the room for hours and had asked for coffee. Those statements were not voluntary.”

In addition to the debate about the confession, the attorneys argued several other points Friday:

• Whether or not Andrade is a gang member. The defense said he once was, but no longer; the prosecutors said he’s still a gang member and cites his recent fights in the jail, backing gang members. It opens one question: gangs have been known to kill members for committing homosexual acts. Deputy District Attorney Robert Miller said Andrade killed Zapata because she tricked him into a sex act and therefore was afraid he’d also be killed. They believe it shows he premeditated the murder.
• When Andrade was arrested in Zapata’s car, he told police he’d just stolen the car from a short distance away because the keys were in the ignition. Prosecutors had sexual photos of Andrade in Zapata’s car, taken the previous week. The photos were on a cell phone found that night in the car. Defense attorneys said there is no proof that the phone belonged to Andrade, or that police had the legal right to look at the photos.
• Defense attorneys will be arguing that the case is a “heat of passion murder,” and not first-degree because Andrade was angry with Zapata when he discovered she was a man. Prosecutors claim Andrade learned of the deception earlier in the day, then waited for Zapata to return home and killed her because of his fear of his gang members coming after him.
• Some quart bottles of beer were found in the room, and defense attorneys said they may be using “intoxication” as a defense in the case.

[…]

The murder trial of Mr Andrade is set to begin April 14.

————

(Cross-posted at Questioning Transphobia)

————

Previous related posts on this blog:

• Remembering Angie Zapata (February 17, 2009)
• Angie Zapata murder trial: accused faces habitual offender tag (January 1, 2009)
• Angie Zapata murder trial update (October 29, 2008)
• Angie Zapata trial – preliminary hearing (September 19, 2008)
• Angie Zapata murder – court date set (August 28, 2008)
• Nearly human? (August 15, 2008)
• Angie Zapata update (August 7, 2008)
• Linkage roundup (August 7, 2008)
• Don’t panic (July 31, 2008)