[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to side with defendant here but prosecutors have a VERY REAL problem in front of a potential jury in that the two responders to Rowe’s ad testified at PE that, despite being goaded by Rowe, neither of them were in any position to JUMP the victim if she was surprised by them in any way, and, in fact, one of the “innocent victims” (as the court referred to them) was daunted by the REAL victim’s husband answering the door (he testified that “the man answering the door [actually] lived there”). They were simply answering an ad for a “casual encounter” (not uncommon, folks).[/quote]
The problem with this argument is that the case is about what Rowe was intending to happen, not what actually happened. If Rowe goaded someone to rape the woman, and that same woman stops the rape from happening when they try to attack by shooting and killing the attacker, Rowe would still be guilty of soliciting even though the rape didn’t happen. In fact in that particular situation Rowe might even be charged in the death of the attacker. Effectively Rowe “set it in motion”. I think I have read/heard the term “unequivocal step”. Considering the other items taken as a whole, I would say that the requirement is satisfied.
Same applies if you solicit someone to kill your husband (or wife) and it turns out the person you are soliciting to do the job is a cop. The murder doesn’t happen, but you are still guilty of soliciting for the murder or contract killing.
