This paper analyzes defense arguments in two high-profile juvenile homicide cases: the Tate case and the King Brothers case. In the Tate case, the central defense rests on mens rea — specifically, whether the young defendant possessed the mental state required for criminal liability, given his exposure to staged professional wrestling. In the King Brothers case, where guilt is largely undisputed, the defense shifts to constitutional sentencing concerns, arguing that life imprisonment for juvenile defendants violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Both cases highlight the importance of rehabilitation potential and the unique circumstances of child defendants in the criminal justice system.
The two cases examined here — the Tate case and the King Brothers case — both involve juvenile defendants charged in connection with homicides. Though the cases share some surface similarities, they present markedly different legal challenges and require distinct defense strategies. The Tate case centers on the question of criminal intent, while the King Brothers case turns primarily on the constitutionality of the proposed sentence.
The Tate case, though incredibly sad and gruesome in its details, poses a straightforward matter of mens rea. The central question is whether the young defendant had the mental state required to commit the crime of which he is accused.
As a defense attorney, the goal is to demonstrate that the defendant had no meaningful mental appreciation for his actions, and that he subjectively did not believe any harm — or at least any serious harm — would come to the victim. If that can be established, he cannot be found guilty of any crime whatsoever.
To that end, the wrestling defense is a valuable tool. It shows that when actions such as headlocks are depicted on television, no apparent harm results to the person being "attacked." In other words, if the defendant perceived these wrestling moves as no more dangerous than an episode of a children's program — because the people being "attacked" on television consistently got up without any visible pain or injury — then the defendant may not have had any legal appreciation for the harm his actions could cause.
This is precisely where the relevance of wrestling being staged enters the picture. If the defendant reasonably did not understand that the moves depicted on television were choreographed and performed under controlled conditions, the videos are directly relevant to showing that he did not believe his actions would result in harm to the victim. Consequently, he did not act with the intent required to constitute a crime. For background on how courts evaluate a defendant's subjective understanding in such cases, Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute provides a useful overview of criminal intent standards.
"Life sentence as unconstitutional for juveniles"
"Undisputed guilt and constitutional sentencing challenge"
"Rehabilitation potential and mitigated sentencing argument"
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.