Been on jury duty for the past week. First time actually serving. My first time and its a murder case. After tons of forensic stuff , the horrible pictures, and one lieing wittnes after another. It was so obvious it was self defense, I could not believe they wasted tax payers money and keep this poor guy in jail for 3 years because he couldn't pay. His bale! What a tragic .
were is the justice?
- Thread starter fine wine
- Start date
- Status
I do not understand. Was he found innocent? Was he found guilty? The way you said it makes it sound like he is going to jail just because he could not pay.
Except in very rare circumstances, murder suspects are always held without bail regardless of their financial status.
They never pick me.
- Thread starter
- #5
He was found innocent on all charges. We ruled it self defense. He shot the man with the attackers own gun! And this happened Dec. 22, 2010! And yes you are correct, because it was murder no bail was set. I was glad to free him, but why on earth did it take so long???
I never get picked either.
I don't quite understand, why was he going to jail for three years if it was self defense?
I don't quite understand, why was he going to jail for three years if it was self defense?
The stakes are so high that it is in both parties' interests to proceed deliberately and cautiously. A defense attorney is going to want to do as through an investigation as possible. Every defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial (usually defined as within one year of arraignment) so for the case to have taken this long (which isn't outside of the norm for murder cases) he had to have affirmatively waived his right.
- Thread starter
- #8
It took 3years to get to trial. And he had to stay in jail until his trail. He was arrested in 2010 his trial was this week.
Because that's his theory he presented at trial; the prosecution disagreed and the evidence at least supported to a probable cause standard that it was murder. There is no intermediary step between arraignment and trial for this issue to resolve the entire case. A defendant might file a motion to dismiss (and probably did here) but the court could only dismiss the case if there was no evidence to support the indictment.
Murder cases are obviously especially complicated, but they all take a long time. Attorneys on both sides need to gather evidence, share evidence, build their case, find and retain expert witnesses, etc. It's the nature of the beast. I'm sure that the gentleman in question was much happier with this length of time than he would have been if his lawyers rushed through things, weren't properly prepared, and the outcome was different. It sucks that he had to sit that long though.
It's easy to say that he never should have been charged, but if he shot the attacker with the attackers own weapon, there's always going to be questions about the need to use deadly force. Shooting an unarmed person is always going to be an issue.
Another issue that occurred to me while reading the above post. While the incident occurred in 2010 he might not have been arrested until much later.
So much for the right to a speedy trial.
Frank
Frank
I was released from jury duty when I informed the attorney for the defense that he was buying oxycontins from my next door neighbor that very morning and I saw him snorting them in the parking lot as I was walking into the courthouse.
Just to be clear, it is the defendant, and only the defendant, who can waive his rights to a speedy trial.
- Thread starter
- #15
The shooting happened Dec.22, 2010. He was arrested Dec.24, 2010. I guess what I can't understand is how the Grand jury did not see that it was self defense. And it's not just me, it was the whole jury who came to that conclution. Anyway our system worked. This time..…...............JR
This story firms up a point many times overlooked (or scoffed) by the "I got a CCW permit" crowd who are quick to talk about myriad issues relevant to their potential use of whatever they might be toting in their pocket that day. "What manufacture, what caliber, how many spare magazines, what holster, where to carry it...on and on". Of course the "Judging by 12 as opposed to carrying by 6" philosophy is also a popular topic.....and all of that is good.
Lest we forget though, after you drop that hammer on someone and the smoke clears, you might be spending some time away from home for a while....maybe 3 years or more. And that's if you're INNOCENT. I submit this merely as a point to ponder as I think sometimes people may be unaware (or choose not to acknowledge) exactly how serious the ramifications of using deadly force can be. Just something to keep in mind........nothing else.
Lest we forget though, after you drop that hammer on someone and the smoke clears, you might be spending some time away from home for a while....maybe 3 years or more. And that's if you're INNOCENT. I submit this merely as a point to ponder as I think sometimes people may be unaware (or choose not to acknowledge) exactly how serious the ramifications of using deadly force can be. Just something to keep in mind........nothing else.
Last edited:
The comments about why the Grand Jury did what it did needs some explanation. Part of the problem is that grand jurors do not understand their role.
As an attorney I never served on a petit jury. However, for some reason years ago I was summoned for Grand Jury duty. This consisted of meeting once or twice a month for six months for all day. The Asst. D.A. presents a case and the Grand Jury had to decide whether there is sufficient evidence, sort of like reasonable cause, to hold the accused over for trial. I told the ADA I was surprised I was selected for Grand Jury duty since I was an attorney. He was much younger than me and he made the stupid remark that perhaps I could instruct him on how to present cases.
It became readily apparent that the ADA was used to a Grand Jury who would rubber stamp all of his requests. The first case he presented gave me a very difficult time. Although it was evident that a crime, robbery, had been committed the only evidence he presented that the accused was the perpetrator was they both had the same first name, John. The victim's affidavit described a person far different in appearance than the accused. I asked a couple of questions as did one Grand Juror. When we met to discuss what action we would take a few folks thought there job was to rubber stamp everything the ADA presented. I re-read to them the instructions we were given and the explanation provided to us as to what role the Grand Jury should have. That opened up some eyes the the vote was not to hand up an indictment. The ADA was shocked!
In about 20% of the cases we found no cause. At the end of the sessions - a very long six months - the ADA said he would never put an attorney on the Grand Jury again. However, it opened my eyes quite a bit.
As an attorney I never served on a petit jury. However, for some reason years ago I was summoned for Grand Jury duty. This consisted of meeting once or twice a month for six months for all day. The Asst. D.A. presents a case and the Grand Jury had to decide whether there is sufficient evidence, sort of like reasonable cause, to hold the accused over for trial. I told the ADA I was surprised I was selected for Grand Jury duty since I was an attorney. He was much younger than me and he made the stupid remark that perhaps I could instruct him on how to present cases.
It became readily apparent that the ADA was used to a Grand Jury who would rubber stamp all of his requests. The first case he presented gave me a very difficult time. Although it was evident that a crime, robbery, had been committed the only evidence he presented that the accused was the perpetrator was they both had the same first name, John. The victim's affidavit described a person far different in appearance than the accused. I asked a couple of questions as did one Grand Juror. When we met to discuss what action we would take a few folks thought there job was to rubber stamp everything the ADA presented. I re-read to them the instructions we were given and the explanation provided to us as to what role the Grand Jury should have. That opened up some eyes the the vote was not to hand up an indictment. The ADA was shocked!
In about 20% of the cases we found no cause. At the end of the sessions - a very long six months - the ADA said he would never put an attorney on the Grand Jury again. However, it opened my eyes quite a bit.
Out of curiosity, do you know how much his bail was? If it was a normal bail for such an infraction and he just couldn't pay it, or had anyone that could help him with it, then that is a tough break. If the bail was much higher than normal, then that is something different.
I would imagine, however, that he would take 3 years over being dead. It's just a shame he didn't have enough money to stay out of jail for the trial.
What makes you think the "justice system" is about justice? Justice and the US legal system rarely go hand in hand. The world we live in these days is driven by greed and instant gratification. The days of moral standards as a nation are long gone.
This case, as I read it, was a simple case of the defendant not being able to post bail. You're certainly entitled to your opinion of our justice system, but how does that opinion relate to this case, where the defendant was found innocent of all charges?
Again, unless I'm reading it wrong, the defendant didn't spend 3 years in jail because he had to, he spent it in there because he couldn't afford the bail.
- Status
Similar threads
