A.J. Armstrong, who was convicted of shooting his parents in 2016, is requesting a fourth trial. His new defense attorney claims that the guilty verdict should be voided due to various issues, including questioning the credibility of a prosecution witness and whether Armstrong should have been tried as an adult or a juvenile. Armstrong was 16 at the time of the murders and was sentenced to life in prison. The attorney argues that if he had been tried as a juvenile, he would have had more sentencing options.
A.J. Armstrong requests fourth trial after being convicted of parents’ 2016 murders
A.J. Armstrong, the Houston man convicted of shooting his parents in 2016, is asking for another trial. His new defense attorney claims that there are issues with the guilty verdict, including the credibility of a prosecution witness and the question of whether Armstrong should have been tried as an adult or a juvenile. Armstrong, who was 16 at the time of the murders, was sentenced to life in prison. His attorney argues that if he had been tried as a juvenile, he would have had more sentencing options. Now, Armstrong is seeking a fourth trial to challenge the previous convictions.
The Issues with the Guilty Verdict
One of the main issues raised by Armstrong’s defense attorney is the credibility of a prosecution witness. The attorney claims that this witness presented damning new evidence in the most recent trial, but their credibility should be questioned. Additionally, the defense questions whether Armstrong should have been tried as an adult or a juvenile. They argue that if he had been tried as a juvenile, the jury would have had more sentencing options, including the possibility of a cap of 40 years as the sentence. The defense highlights the stark contrast between the possibility of parole after 40 years as an adult and the potential for a more lenient sentence as a juvenile.
Seeking a Fourth Trial
A.J. Armstrong, who was convicted of killing his parents when he was 16, is now seeking a fourth trial. His new defense attorney argues that there were issues with the previous convictions, including the credibility of a prosecution witness and the question of whether Armstrong should have been tried as an adult or a juvenile. The attorney claims that if Armstrong had been tried as a juvenile, he would have had more sentencing options. Now, Armstrong hopes to challenge the previous guilty verdict and have a new trial.
