9/11 Chapel Arsonist Says He Was Too Drunk To Be Guilty

The Harvard Law School grad accused of setting a fire inside a 9/11 memorial has pleaded not guilty. The lawyer representing 27-year-old Brian Schroeder says his client was "profoundly intoxicated" when the fire broke out and that he "has very limited memories of being inside the building," where he allegedly torched teddy bears, flowers, notes, and other mementos last fall. After the incident, Schroder reportedly told police: "It felt like an adventure, and I thought I was dreaming."

After being accused of setting the fire inside the East Side's Memorial Park chapel—which contains the remains of unidentified 9/11 victims—Schroeder lost a job offer at the prestigious law firm Sidley Austin. A judge ruled yesterday that Schroeder can remain free on $3,000 bail, but he's not allowed to leave Manhattan, the Daily News reports. Schroeder's friends and family have said the incident was not politically motivated, and his attorney initially suggested that someone might have slipped drugs into his client's drink before the 9 a.m. blaze. According to early reports, law enforcement sources believe Schroeder might have set the fire as a drunken dare.

The Post reports that Schroeder has been trying to cooperate with investigators, but he was so drunk on the morning in question that he can't recall much.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Ben Muessig in News on March 18, 2010 10:26 AM

Comments [rss]

jaycjay

The point of claiming intoxication as a defense is that burglary requires both knowledge that you're somewhere you shouldn't be, and intent to commit a crime. An arson conviction also would require that intent be established.

From NY Penal Law Section 15.25: "...evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged." Intent and knowledge are among those elements.

Guest

A judge ruled yesterday that Schroeder can remain free on $3,000 bail, but he's not allowed to leave Manhattan

Not allowed to leave a borough? That can't be true. Unless the judge is like those narrow minded NYC residents that believe Manhattan to be its own state.

bodega

An intoxication defense? Seriously? Good luck with that.

Thespis

It's not a legal defense -- but this guy hasn't got a legal defense: he's guilty, and he's going to jail. Still, it's better to be thought of as an alcoholic that drinks until he blacks out than as a terrorist who intentionally burned down a 9-11 memorial. (Maybe he'll even get less time that way.)

really!?!?

1) no one forced you to get that drunk. you did that yourself and are responsible for the repercussions.

2) it takes commitment to get that drunk by 9am!

MT

Well, the adventure is gonna continue, dumbass. In a prison shower.

schadenfreudian mensch

So as long as I'm drunk, I can't be legally responsible for my action, criminal or otherwise? And this guy graduated from Harvard Law? It's a good thing that that law firm rescind their offer of employment on this douche.

40oz.killa

dumb ass kid

sadpanda

nice try. can't wait to see this one on a dui charge. "oh judge, judge, I was way too drunk! I don't even remember getting in my car! I'm innocent!"