LGBT Judge Lets Child Killer Walk Free In Shocking Court Decision

On December 17 of 2013, a 15-month-old girl by the name of Kamaya Flores was found dead — with her ribs broken — in the home of her father, 25-year-old Darian McWoods. According to medical examiners, the toddler had enough methadone in her body to, “slow or stop her breathing.” During McWoods’ three-week trial in Portland, a couple of theories were presented as to how that happened. For one thing, McWoods had a habit of mixing methadone with Capri Suns. So there was a chance that his daughter drank one of the mixtures by accident.

Alternatively, prosecutors found evidence that McWoods would occasionally give small doses of the drug to his children in order to put them to sleep. Whichever theory you believe — or if you believe some other theory — McWoods was clearly responsible for his daughter somehow ingesting a highly lethal synthetic opioid. She also had a trace amount of methamphetamine in her blood. Additionally, on top of the methadone and meth in her system, the girl had also suffered, “abusive injuries consistent with asphyxia,” as well as a laceration of the liver and facial bruising. Those injuries may have been caused by McWood’s habit of, “plugging her nose and holding her down until she fell asleep.”

In other words, Darian McWoods killed his daughter in an extremely depraved manner. There’s no doubt about that whatsoever. In any sane society, he would’ve been executed a long time ago. But that’s not what happened in this case. Instead, McWoods was sentenced to life imprisonment (with the possibility of parole) following his conviction for “murder by abuse, first-degree criminal mistreatment, and witness tampering.”

At the time, the grandmother and great-grandmother of the 15-month-old victim told reporters they were relieved that McWoods couldn’t harm any more children, and that they finally had some closure. Watch:

That footage is from July of 2018. So if you’re keeping track: Five years after Darian McWoods killed his own daughter, prosecutors in Portland finally decided to bring a case and secure a conviction. And the family, belatedly, is relieved that this depraved, evil man is in prison.

But the story didn’t end there. What happened next is a case study in how “equity” and “restorative justice” works in places like Portland. Even in cases where someone has already been convicted by a jury, and even when their crime is to torture and brutally murder a child, Left-wing prosecutors and judges in Portland will still do everything in their power to ensure that the killer is allowed to go free. They do not rest. They do not feel any sense of shame or demonstrate any interest in protecting the public, or protecting children, at any point in the process.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

That’s why, instead of spending the rest of his life in prison, Darian McWoods is going to be a free man in less than two years. Yes, you heard that correctly. After killing his own daughter, and being convicted for it, Darian McWoods will walk free in about a year-and-a-half. In total, he will have spent just a few years in prison for torturing and murdering his own young child. 

To understand how this happened — and how it implicates the entire so-called “justice system” in places like Portland — we need to go back to 2022. That’s when a court of appeals in Oregon decided to overturn Darian McWoods’ conviction. Watch:

The ruling from the appellate court was that McWoods didn’t receive a fair trial, because during jury selection, the prosecution prevented two black people from serving on the jury.

Before we get into the specifics of this ruling, and how absurd it is, it’s important to realize that during jury selection, there are two ways for prosecutors (and defense attorneys) to veto a member of the jury, and prevent them from serving. The first possible reason is “for cause.” This means that the prosecution has to show that the person is incompetent or severely biased in some way. The other way is to issue a “peremptory challenge.” The prosecution doesn’t have to explain the reason for this challenge. They can just look at a juror, decide they have a bad feeling about him, and issue a challenge that gets him kicked off immediately. 

The catch is that prosecutors (and defense attorneys) are only allowed a small number of these challenges. In Oregon, for most trials, you only get three challenges. That’s it. Therefore you have to use them wisely. Additionally, you can’t violate the Constitution. So you can’t challenge all of the black jurors, simply because you want to discriminate against black people. Even though data suggests that black jurors are substantially more sympathetic to black defendants, you don’t get to kick black jurors off the jury simply because they’re black. If the defense thinks you’re doing that, they can complain to the judge about it, and attempt to reverse your challenge.

That’s exactly what happened during the trial of Darian McWoods. The prosecutors got rid of two black jurors using their challenges. And on the spot, predictably, the defense claimed that racism was involved. But the trial court judge disagreed. He thought it was completely reasonable to get rid of these two individuals. But on appeal, the court in Oregon decided that indeed, the dismissal of these two jurors was racist. Therefore, McWoods gets a new trial for killing his daughter.

If you read the ruling from the appellate court, you immediately realize what a farce it is. They didn’t uncover any evidence that the prosecutors had secret racial motivations. They didn’t discover that the prosecutors were posting on some secret KKK message board or anything. Instead, the appellate court determined that some white jurors were allowed to stay on the jury, even though they gave somewhat similar answers on their jury questionnaires as the two black jurors who got kicked off. And therefore, the appellate court inferred that the prosecutors must have been motivated by racism. That’s it. That’s their entire justification for throwing out this conviction.

This logic, such as it is, falls apart the moment you realize that answers on jury questionnaires are just one of many ways that prosecutors can “size up” a potential member of the jury. Another way is to look at them, frankly. And that’s what happened in this case. Here’s what the prosecutor told the trial court judge, right after issuing a challenge against Juror number 6, a black man.

“Frankly, he showed up to jury service wearing a shirt that says, ‘I have issues’. I don’t know what that means, but that, in and of itself, is also concerning to the State.’”

Yes, the black juror showed up with a shirt reading, “I have issues.” That’s how he walked into the courtroom for jury selection for a high-profile murder trial. In looking online, I found a few potential matching t-shirts that would fit this description.

Whatever this shirt looked like exactly, it’s a safe bet that Juror Number 6 should not have been seated on the jury, for this reason alone. There are really only three options to explain his decision to wear this shirt. The first option of course is that he legitimately does have issues, in which case he’s admitting he should be disqualified. The second option is he doesn’t really have “issues,” and he just wants to get out of jury duty. The third option is that he’s an adult man wearing a Deadpool t-shirt to court because he’s an overgrown child.

In all of these cases, Juror Number 6 clearly should’ve been tossed immediately. And that’s not even taking his jury questionnaire into account, where he stated it was “possible” he might “self-impose” a higher standard of proof in a murder trial like this one. Nor does it take into account that he agreed with the statement, “DNA evidence is unreliable.” Keep in mind, Juror Number 6 was the only juror in the entire jury pool who admitted to the prosecution that he didn’t trust DNA evidence. That seems like a valid, independent reason to kick him off the jury in this case, if you’re the prosecution. And again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with his skin color.

The same is true for the other black juror who was kicked off, Juror Number 9. Here’s the reason prosecutors issued a challenge against him: “He leaned towards strongly agreeing that he believes that in our criminal justice system that innocent people are routinely being found guilty. ….And then yesterday, he indicated that he was more likely to excuse behavior if the child was injured due to reckless conduct as opposed to intentional. There was quite a long discussion about that issue. And he was one of the few that actually volunteered and commented on a distinction, in his mind, between looking less concerned about conduct that occurred recklessly versus intentionally injuring this child.”

Again, we have a clear way to distinguish Juror Number 9 from all the others. He engaged in a “long discussion” in which he said he’s willing to “excuse” reckless behavior, instead of intentional behavior, while also repeating propaganda about how the criminal justice system is biased or whatever. So the prosecutors had a very good reason to get rid of him as well. And that’s exactly what they did.

On appeal, however, a three-judge panel in Oregon concluded that the prosecutors must have been motivated by racism. Concerning Juror Number 6, the judges simply pointed to the fact that other jurors had turned in similar questionnaires. They completely ignored his t-shirt, and his comment on DNA evidence being unreliable. 

Concerning Number 9, the judges ignored the entire conversation about recklessness. Here’s what they wrote in their opinion: “With respect to concerns about statements made by juror number 9… we cannot conclude based on the record that juror number 9 responded as the prosecutor argued he did.”

In other words, the appeals court said it couldn’t verify the conversation, so they’re just going to pretend it never happened. They’re going to infer that the trial court judge — who was actually in the courtroom, witnessing all of this — must have been wrong. And then they’re going to accuse the prosecutors of being racist, primarily because they happened to exclude the only two black people who were around during jury selection: “The plausibility of the state’s race-neutral reasons for excusing an otherwise qualified black juror decreased with the second [challenge]. That implausibility is evidence of purposeful discrimination.”

This yet another manifestation of the Left’s tendency — which you may have noticed by now — to infer racism simply on the basis of “disparate impact.” If something affects black people, then no matter what, it has to be racist. And the people who are responsible must be white supremacists. That’s how they approach every situation like this. They work their way backwards from there, to rationalize their pre-existing conclusion. And that’s what the appellate court did here.

But only one judge wrote this opinion. Now I’ll give you one guess: With everything you’ve heard, what do you think this judge looks like? Let’s do a little thought experiment here. Close your eyes, and try to picture this judge’s appearance. She just threw out a child killer’s conviction because the prosecutors dismissed two black jurors who were obviously unqualified. What do you come up with?

If you have any capacity for pattern recognition whatsoever, you already knew:

Again, you just knew she’d look exactly like this. It was never in doubt. The most unspeakable atrocities and hideous evils the world has ever seen are supported, encouraged, and facilitated by women with this exact haircut. And this case is no exception.

This particular iteration of the gay feminist destroyer is named “Judge Jodie Mooney.” She’s a proud member of the LGBT+ community. When she was appointed to the bench by the governor of Oregon back in 2019, she stated: “I’m firmly committed to following the rule of law in a way that supports a diverse and open society.” She added that laws must be, “enforced equitably.” And with this case, Jodie Mooney illustrated exactly what the “equitable enforcement” of the law looks like. She’s bringing some “diversity” to the streets of Portland, in the form of child murderers. 

At the same time, to be as fair as possible to this judge (who has since retired by the way), she didn’t actually secure the release of Darian McWoods. She threw out his conviction and sent it back to the lower court for a new trial. And you might think that’s not necessarily a huge deal, because the new trial is guaranteed to have the same result as the first, given that this guy definitely absolutely murdered his child. Certainly, as you saw, the family members of the victim anticipated that there would be a new trial, and this child killer would be convicted again, with a new jury.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, prosecutors in Portland used the opportunity to give Darian McWoods a plea deal. He simply had to plead guilty to manslaughter and “criminal mistreatment.” And in exchange, he gets to leave prison in less than two years. To be clear, there was no reason for this plea deal. It wasn’t as though some critical piece of evidence had disappeared. They just offered it, out of the blue. One of the lead prosecutors who offered this deal was Multnomah County Chief Deputy District Attorney Amanda Nadell. We’ll put her picture on the screen as well:

In a statement following this plea deal, Nadell remarked, “In her short life, Kamaya brought so much light and love to her family. Since her death, her family has remained steadfast in their commitment to ensuring justice was brought for Kamaya. I am grateful that Mr. McWoods took accountability for his role in Kamaya’s death, by pleading guilty to Manslaughter in the First Degree and Criminal Mistreatment in the First Degree. I hope that the finality of this resolution will provide closure to the victim’s family.” It’s one of the most sadistic statements you’ll ever see, especially after watching that footage from the family that we played earlier.

That is how “justice” works in Portland. Multiply it by a dozen different Soros DA’s, and you get a sense of how the Left-wing prosecutors conduct business everywhere, all the time. Even when they secure convictions in high-profile murders like this one, it doesn’t last very long. They wait until the media attention dies down, and then they sabotage their own cases. You can’t fully appreciate the extent of the lawlessness in cities like Los Angeles and Seattle and Portland and New York, and the reasons for it, until you understand this dynamic. The most heinous crimes imaginable mean nothing to these people. All that matters is creating disorder. They know their power depends on it. The case of Darian McWoods demonstrates once again that nothing — not even the torture and murder of a child — is going to deter them.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

On December 17 of 2013, a 15-month-old girl by the name of Kamaya Flores was found dead — with her ribs broken — in the home of her father, 25-year-old Darian McWoods. According to medical examiners, the toddler had enough methadone in her body to, “slow or stop her breathing.” During McWoods’ three-week trial in Portland, a couple of theories were presented as to how that happened. For one thing, McWoods had a habit of mixing methadone with Capri Suns. So there was a chance that his daughter drank one of the mixtures by accident.

Alternatively, prosecutors found evidence that McWoods would occasionally give small doses of the drug to his children in order to put them to sleep. Whichever theory you believe — or if you believe some other theory — McWoods was clearly responsible for his daughter somehow ingesting a highly lethal synthetic opioid. She also had a trace amount of methamphetamine in her blood. Additionally, on top of the methadone and meth in her system, the girl had also suffered, “abusive injuries consistent with asphyxia,” as well as a laceration of the liver and facial bruising. Those injuries may have been caused by McWood’s habit of, “plugging her nose and holding her down until she fell asleep.”

In other words, Darian McWoods killed his daughter in an extremely depraved manner. There’s no doubt about that whatsoever. In any sane society, he would’ve been executed a long time ago. But that’s not what happened in this case. Instead, McWoods was sentenced to life imprisonment (with the possibility of parole) following his conviction for “murder by abuse, first-degree criminal mistreatment, and witness tampering.”

At the time, the grandmother and great-grandmother of the 15-month-old victim told reporters they were relieved that McWoods couldn’t harm any more children, and that they finally had some closure. Watch:

That footage is from July of 2018. So if you’re keeping track: Five years after Darian McWoods killed his own daughter, prosecutors in Portland finally decided to bring a case and secure a conviction. And the family, belatedly, is relieved that this depraved, evil man is in prison.

But the story didn’t end there. What happened next is a case study in how “equity” and “restorative justice” works in places like Portland. Even in cases where someone has already been convicted by a jury, and even when their crime is to torture and brutally murder a child, Left-wing prosecutors and judges in Portland will still do everything in their power to ensure that the killer is allowed to go free. They do not rest. They do not feel any sense of shame or demonstrate any interest in protecting the public, or protecting children, at any point in the process.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

That’s why, instead of spending the rest of his life in prison, Darian McWoods is going to be a free man in less than two years. Yes, you heard that correctly. After killing his own daughter, and being convicted for it, Darian McWoods will walk free in about a year-and-a-half. In total, he will have spent just a few years in prison for torturing and murdering his own young child. 

To understand how this happened — and how it implicates the entire so-called “justice system” in places like Portland — we need to go back to 2022. That’s when a court of appeals in Oregon decided to overturn Darian McWoods’ conviction. Watch:

The ruling from the appellate court was that McWoods didn’t receive a fair trial, because during jury selection, the prosecution prevented two black people from serving on the jury.

Before we get into the specifics of this ruling, and how absurd it is, it’s important to realize that during jury selection, there are two ways for prosecutors (and defense attorneys) to veto a member of the jury, and prevent them from serving. The first possible reason is “for cause.” This means that the prosecution has to show that the person is incompetent or severely biased in some way. The other way is to issue a “peremptory challenge.” The prosecution doesn’t have to explain the reason for this challenge. They can just look at a juror, decide they have a bad feeling about him, and issue a challenge that gets him kicked off immediately. 

The catch is that prosecutors (and defense attorneys) are only allowed a small number of these challenges. In Oregon, for most trials, you only get three challenges. That’s it. Therefore you have to use them wisely. Additionally, you can’t violate the Constitution. So you can’t challenge all of the black jurors, simply because you want to discriminate against black people. Even though data suggests that black jurors are substantially more sympathetic to black defendants, you don’t get to kick black jurors off the jury simply because they’re black. If the defense thinks you’re doing that, they can complain to the judge about it, and attempt to reverse your challenge.

That’s exactly what happened during the trial of Darian McWoods. The prosecutors got rid of two black jurors using their challenges. And on the spot, predictably, the defense claimed that racism was involved. But the trial court judge disagreed. He thought it was completely reasonable to get rid of these two individuals. But on appeal, the court in Oregon decided that indeed, the dismissal of these two jurors was racist. Therefore, McWoods gets a new trial for killing his daughter.

If you read the ruling from the appellate court, you immediately realize what a farce it is. They didn’t uncover any evidence that the prosecutors had secret racial motivations. They didn’t discover that the prosecutors were posting on some secret KKK message board or anything. Instead, the appellate court determined that some white jurors were allowed to stay on the jury, even though they gave somewhat similar answers on their jury questionnaires as the two black jurors who got kicked off. And therefore, the appellate court inferred that the prosecutors must have been motivated by racism. That’s it. That’s their entire justification for throwing out this conviction.

This logic, such as it is, falls apart the moment you realize that answers on jury questionnaires are just one of many ways that prosecutors can “size up” a potential member of the jury. Another way is to look at them, frankly. And that’s what happened in this case. Here’s what the prosecutor told the trial court judge, right after issuing a challenge against Juror number 6, a black man.

“Frankly, he showed up to jury service wearing a shirt that says, ‘I have issues’. I don’t know what that means, but that, in and of itself, is also concerning to the State.’”

Yes, the black juror showed up with a shirt reading, “I have issues.” That’s how he walked into the courtroom for jury selection for a high-profile murder trial. In looking online, I found a few potential matching t-shirts that would fit this description.

Whatever this shirt looked like exactly, it’s a safe bet that Juror Number 6 should not have been seated on the jury, for this reason alone. There are really only three options to explain his decision to wear this shirt. The first option of course is that he legitimately does have issues, in which case he’s admitting he should be disqualified. The second option is he doesn’t really have “issues,” and he just wants to get out of jury duty. The third option is that he’s an adult man wearing a Deadpool t-shirt to court because he’s an overgrown child.

In all of these cases, Juror Number 6 clearly should’ve been tossed immediately. And that’s not even taking his jury questionnaire into account, where he stated it was “possible” he might “self-impose” a higher standard of proof in a murder trial like this one. Nor does it take into account that he agreed with the statement, “DNA evidence is unreliable.” Keep in mind, Juror Number 6 was the only juror in the entire jury pool who admitted to the prosecution that he didn’t trust DNA evidence. That seems like a valid, independent reason to kick him off the jury in this case, if you’re the prosecution. And again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with his skin color.

The same is true for the other black juror who was kicked off, Juror Number 9. Here’s the reason prosecutors issued a challenge against him: “He leaned towards strongly agreeing that he believes that in our criminal justice system that innocent people are routinely being found guilty. ….And then yesterday, he indicated that he was more likely to excuse behavior if the child was injured due to reckless conduct as opposed to intentional. There was quite a long discussion about that issue. And he was one of the few that actually volunteered and commented on a distinction, in his mind, between looking less concerned about conduct that occurred recklessly versus intentionally injuring this child.”

Again, we have a clear way to distinguish Juror Number 9 from all the others. He engaged in a “long discussion” in which he said he’s willing to “excuse” reckless behavior, instead of intentional behavior, while also repeating propaganda about how the criminal justice system is biased or whatever. So the prosecutors had a very good reason to get rid of him as well. And that’s exactly what they did.

On appeal, however, a three-judge panel in Oregon concluded that the prosecutors must have been motivated by racism. Concerning Juror Number 6, the judges simply pointed to the fact that other jurors had turned in similar questionnaires. They completely ignored his t-shirt, and his comment on DNA evidence being unreliable. 

Concerning Number 9, the judges ignored the entire conversation about recklessness. Here’s what they wrote in their opinion: “With respect to concerns about statements made by juror number 9… we cannot conclude based on the record that juror number 9 responded as the prosecutor argued he did.”

In other words, the appeals court said it couldn’t verify the conversation, so they’re just going to pretend it never happened. They’re going to infer that the trial court judge — who was actually in the courtroom, witnessing all of this — must have been wrong. And then they’re going to accuse the prosecutors of being racist, primarily because they happened to exclude the only two black people who were around during jury selection: “The plausibility of the state’s race-neutral reasons for excusing an otherwise qualified black juror decreased with the second [challenge]. That implausibility is evidence of purposeful discrimination.”

This yet another manifestation of the Left’s tendency — which you may have noticed by now — to infer racism simply on the basis of “disparate impact.” If something affects black people, then no matter what, it has to be racist. And the people who are responsible must be white supremacists. That’s how they approach every situation like this. They work their way backwards from there, to rationalize their pre-existing conclusion. And that’s what the appellate court did here.

But only one judge wrote this opinion. Now I’ll give you one guess: With everything you’ve heard, what do you think this judge looks like? Let’s do a little thought experiment here. Close your eyes, and try to picture this judge’s appearance. She just threw out a child killer’s conviction because the prosecutors dismissed two black jurors who were obviously unqualified. What do you come up with?

If you have any capacity for pattern recognition whatsoever, you already knew:

Again, you just knew she’d look exactly like this. It was never in doubt. The most unspeakable atrocities and hideous evils the world has ever seen are supported, encouraged, and facilitated by women with this exact haircut. And this case is no exception.

This particular iteration of the gay feminist destroyer is named “Judge Jodie Mooney.” She’s a proud member of the LGBT+ community. When she was appointed to the bench by the governor of Oregon back in 2019, she stated: “I’m firmly committed to following the rule of law in a way that supports a diverse and open society.” She added that laws must be, “enforced equitably.” And with this case, Jodie Mooney illustrated exactly what the “equitable enforcement” of the law looks like. She’s bringing some “diversity” to the streets of Portland, in the form of child murderers. 

At the same time, to be as fair as possible to this judge (who has since retired by the way), she didn’t actually secure the release of Darian McWoods. She threw out his conviction and sent it back to the lower court for a new trial. And you might think that’s not necessarily a huge deal, because the new trial is guaranteed to have the same result as the first, given that this guy definitely absolutely murdered his child. Certainly, as you saw, the family members of the victim anticipated that there would be a new trial, and this child killer would be convicted again, with a new jury.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, prosecutors in Portland used the opportunity to give Darian McWoods a plea deal. He simply had to plead guilty to manslaughter and “criminal mistreatment.” And in exchange, he gets to leave prison in less than two years. To be clear, there was no reason for this plea deal. It wasn’t as though some critical piece of evidence had disappeared. They just offered it, out of the blue. One of the lead prosecutors who offered this deal was Multnomah County Chief Deputy District Attorney Amanda Nadell. We’ll put her picture on the screen as well:

In a statement following this plea deal, Nadell remarked, “In her short life, Kamaya brought so much light and love to her family. Since her death, her family has remained steadfast in their commitment to ensuring justice was brought for Kamaya. I am grateful that Mr. McWoods took accountability for his role in Kamaya’s death, by pleading guilty to Manslaughter in the First Degree and Criminal Mistreatment in the First Degree. I hope that the finality of this resolution will provide closure to the victim’s family.” It’s one of the most sadistic statements you’ll ever see, especially after watching that footage from the family that we played earlier.

That is how “justice” works in Portland. Multiply it by a dozen different Soros DA’s, and you get a sense of how the Left-wing prosecutors conduct business everywhere, all the time. Even when they secure convictions in high-profile murders like this one, it doesn’t last very long. They wait until the media attention dies down, and then they sabotage their own cases. You can’t fully appreciate the extent of the lawlessness in cities like Los Angeles and Seattle and Portland and New York, and the reasons for it, until you understand this dynamic. The most heinous crimes imaginable mean nothing to these people. All that matters is creating disorder. They know their power depends on it. The case of Darian McWoods demonstrates once again that nothing — not even the torture and murder of a child — is going to deter them.

“}]]