Print

[damam]

QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Mar 28 2006, 10:48 AM)  

How about a link. Some background  

sorry thought it was well known enough to not be needed

Heres one explaining the reasoning behind the sentence - Keep in mind he did confess as well
Another one talking about the prosecuter
Heres one where the victims express there gratitude towards Justice Connor and the legal system

QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Mar 28 2006, 10:48 AM)  

... In the state I now reside in you can get more time for littering than for  raping a boy.

or for stealing a song or movie from the RIAA and MPAA. . .  it is pretty absurd


About the not being present at the trial deal . . .
its very rare (and controversial) when an accuser can do so without being present at the trial.  The defendent has the right to confront his accuser if they still can (ie are not dead).  Really the only cases where its common is in cases of abuse dealing with very young children (like under the age of .  Then it is up to the judges consideration, and most of the time the judge does not allow for it.  If they did then child rape convictions would go way up because parents would no longer have to be concerned about subjecting there kids to a trial.  The kid could simply video tape there testimony and that would be that.  According to this article the average judge declines to imprison 8 child molesters due to these reasons.

[puckSR]

QUOTE

About the not being present at the trial deal . . .
its very rare (and controversial) when an accuser can do so without being present at the trial. The defendent has the right to confront his accuser if they still can (ie are not dead). Really the only cases where its common is in cases of abuse dealing with very young children (like under the age of . Then it is up to the judges consideration, and most of the time the judge does not allow for it. If they did then child rape convictions would go way up because parents would no longer have to be concerned about subjecting there kids to a trial. The kid could simply video tape there testimony and that would be that. According to this article the average judge declines to imprison 8 child molesters due to these reasons.

I know...and thats why i brought it up.....
Even in cases where the accusor is not known to the defendent....which is rare...the accusor is known to the court...and the documents are temporarily sealed.....

QUOTE

Defendant not present, I guess you didnt read that part 3 posts ago.

Dumbass...i already said that the defendent didnt need to be present....we are talking about witnesses

QUOTE

Ray Caruth, victim not present because she died.

Great....but as you said, she died, and that is considered an extenuating circumstance...
Sworn statements are admitted too....

I asked for examples of the accusor retracting their accusation, and the trial continuing...or I would even accept cases of the witness retracting their sworn statement and the prosecution continuing to use the sworn statement.....

QUOTE

Stop being so naive when did the constitution have anything to do with the real world, the constitution is a document of convience of your current president.

Well, you might want to notify the SCOTUS, since their entire job is interperting the Constitution

I think this country is founded on a document, I believe its called the Constitution, and I believe it is the most influential document in the USA....
BTW...Bush hates the Constitution...it has all of these rules about due process and "search and seizure"

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(damam @ Mar 29 2006, 11:26 AM)

its very rare (and controversial) when an accuser can do so without being present at the trial.  The defendent has the right to confront his accuser if they still can (ie are not dead).  Really the only cases where its common is in cases of abuse dealing with very young children (like under the age of .  Then it is up to the judges consideration, and most of the time the judge does not allow for it.  If they did then child rape convictions would go way up because parents would no longer have to be concerned about subjecting there kids to a trial.  The kid could simply video tape there testimony and that would be that.  According to this article the average judge declines to imprison 8 child molesters due to these reasons.

That is not quite incorrect trial rights are for defendants victims have no rights in a criminal proceding because Duhh, they are not charged with a crime.

Confrontation tries to prevents individuals from making false claims without having to be acknowledged publicly as well as by the defendant.  This is a defendants right not victim.

Anyone can write a letter to DA saying X did whatever.  Its like the KKK, being forced legally in some states not to be able to hide there faces greatlys reduces their courage and annonimity.

That is the logic behind confrontation.

QUOTE

I asked for examples of the accusor retracting their accusation, and the trial continuing...or I would even accept cases of the witness retracting their sworn statement and the prosecution continuing to use the sworn statement.....

       1) In many states Domestic Abuse charges once filled will be brought before a judge no matter the
           disposition of the defendant. This happens in 9 out of 10 domestics, Couple fights someone gets
           arrested, the other half declines to persue charges after the "makeup" but state still carries charges
           till resolution.
       a ) How because police take sworn statements.
       b ) The police take pictures.
       c ) Usually the agressor confesses but if not still no problem.

This is a slam dunk for a prosecutor.

Dude, I really, really, really, dont understand what you do not comprehend by the word "CONFESSION"

QUOTE

Dumbass...i already said that the defendent didnt need to be present....we are talking about witnesses

When a defendant confesses to a crime the not guilty plea and pending trial is merely a formality.  The young man could fall of the face of the earth, but the written signed confession will not disappear.

Actually the defendant is the one required to be in court, not the victim.  Maybe you are not aware but the vast majority of criminal cases that result in convictions are from circumstantial evidence. Which in lamen terms means their is no direct evidence to implicate anyone. (i.e NO WITNESS) That is the real world.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 29 2006, 09:21 PM)

He does this alot...he says something....without any reason....and its totally false

QUOTE

Former middle school teacher Debra Lafave will avoid prison for a number of sexual dalliances with a 14-year-old student after pleading guilty Tuesday to two counts of lewd and lascivious battery.

Instead of trying to be a antagonist maybe you should read first.  You didnt look to hard a link to the overview of the case via CourtTv.com is in the thread.

[jha'dhur]

For some reason the link to the Police documents are broken which probably put the rambles between you and Phat to bed.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 30 2006, 02:27 AM)

Hmm...seems an apology is in order....sorry...the DA did drop the charges

She a registered sex offender. She plead guilty in the first case, she was being prosecuted in two seperate jurisdictions the 2nd is what you are reffereing to.

I hate her Police file  (link) isnt available I imagine it contains implicating statements/juicy details.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 30 2006, 02:27 AM)

Because you seem rather well-informed...perhaps you can explain to me how a person's bail indicates bias?

I grew up in a neighborhood which spawns 7 out of 10 bank robbers. We spend time pondering loop holes in legal system.

Dude bail is only a surety of appearance in court on appointed date. However depending upon severity of crime bail may or may not be granted or if the individual is a flight risk. But with that said bail (legally)should be reasonable and not excessive.  A good lawyer could get his bail significantly dropped considering no prior crimes, no deaths, media attention.

The Tx woman got off pretty light considering Robert Blake had a Million plus bail, not guilty conviction, O.J. had no bail but mostly do to police chase not guilty.  A Vermont woman killed her husband with a garden rake and she was given $100 K bail.  

1)  Bail is becoming more an more a political tool more than anything else.

2)  Common drug dealers get bails in excees of $30 K.

3)  The Mercedes was worth more than 30K.

P.S.  30K bail cash, you put up your house i.e. bail bond holds deed you pay processing fee of a less than a hundred dollars. You are now FREE. (Assuming you own house not paying mortgage)

        30K Surety you give a bail bondman 10% as a fee to give you your freedom.

Either way I think you would agree she got a slap on the wrist considering she intentionally ran over husband 3x, and tried to also run over his lover. Really and truly she should be on DEATH ROW considering the mitigating circumstances, being TX...

If the NC charges that Iranian with only terroism related charges he will walk. Hate crimes maybe terroisn nada.  You should watch the news reports in the Massoui case, he hung himself (in both cases) with his own big mouth.  Government witnesses have been coerced and coached, and a judge with any integrity would have thrown out the charges but he is a undesirable and we need our 5 lbs of flesh. Remember he plead guilty. I really dont think the Gov, had the juice to convict him without cheating.  Both these cases are witch hunts to large extent.

[jha'dhur]

Funny because the merits of both cases are quite similiar.

1) It is known that the wife was searching for husband.

2) Once she was informed he was with lover she went to scene.

3) She sat in lying outside hotel and called his phone with a bogus emergency.

-) PRE Meditation

She than confronted the two inside the lobby. A fight ensued.

-) Assault & Battery

She then went to her vehicle and waited for the two to exit.

-) Lying in Wait

She than drove her car at the SUV in an attempt to strike lover.

-) Assault With a Deadly Weapon

-) Attempted Murder

Husband pushes lover out of the way and is struck and subsequently ran over 3 more times

-) Attempted Murder

-) Murder in the 1st Degree

Daughter was in car while entire ordeal was happening.

-) Risk of Injury to a Minor

You couple the numerous felonies, with the fatality THAT HAS CAPITAL CRIME written all over it.

Scott Peterson had less over his head.

The only thing we know about the Iranian is he is Iranian and his own admissions, which will probably get him hung. Juries arent physcic.

Dumb kid probably, Terrorist probably not.

I believe your willingness to give the women the benefit of the doubt only proves Bastards point.  From your comments you dont appear at all familiar with the specifics of the case.  Or even what qualifies for death.

Why devote so much time and effort.

Your predispositin = RACE CARD

Just because your pride refuses to let you admit that is an entirelty different animal.

What is even more amusing is how your excuse for everyone is mental state. If either of these broads that lived everday life, with no problems and decided to do something stupid, got caught and now they are crazy.
WAS OJ crazy, maybe SCOTT was distraught.

WELL I am the POPE  

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 31 2006, 02:23 AM)

So attack the insanity plea....I would agree with you...but dont try and string together cases with completely different circumstances as an example of racial/sexual bias

I like the judges, attorneys and prosecutors can only compare the preceeding cases of similiar dispositin to the current.  

And if you presented any argument remotely convincing it would not be hard to post links to case study with similiar circumstance with dissimilar punishment.

The fact that you havent provided any links to subsstantiate your speculation only underscore Bastards comments.

I am done.

Bastard where you at, you been following the VT case. I dont know how she beat the 1st Degree rap.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE

A Vermont jury found a 73-year-old woman guilty of second-degree murder Friday for the violent bludgeoning death of her husband in 2004.

QUOTE

District Judge Katherine Hayes revoked her $100,000 bail pending sentencing

QUOTE

Steven Schreiner's sister-in-law, Jane Richard, echoed his sentiments.

"I'm a little disappointed it wasn't first-degree, but I think the jury did a good job," she said. "I just want my family to be able to move on. Hope has tortured them for long enough."

QUOTE

Davis insisted that the defendant's advanced age should not afford her special treatment regarding her bond or sentencing. "She's remained at large, guilt free, and had her liberty up until today, when the jury said 'guilty,'" Davis said.

I rarely agree with a prosecutor... But it probably was a little more than that, which saved her from the 1st Degree verdict.

[Wong Hung Lo]

Dee! Dee! Dee!

[jha'dhur]

That is one ugly mugshot...

[Chook]

I am not high and mighty on politics, but saw it on the daily show!

[jha'dhur]

[mod edit: image removed on request of high school lacrosse team, which is not related to Duke University]

 
 Link to the search warrant:

 http://www.thesmokin...29061duke1.html

[PhatIrishBastard]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 5 2006, 07:44 PM)

[mod edit: image removed on request of high school lacrosse team, which is not related to Duke University]

 
 Link to the search warrant:

 http://www.thesmokin...29061duke1.html

I have been following press reports and I scanned through the search warrant.

1) The neighbors hear a verbal fight woman yelling and screaming.

2) They recover her broken fingernails in the bathroom where she said she got raped.

3) They find her beat up in a shopping cart at the local grocery.

4) 11 attorneys on the case.

And no arrests. Very telling

[PhatIrishBastard]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 6 2006, 03:47 PM)

So....?

are you saying that they are not going to arrest anyone?

Or do you realize that they are trying to figure out which members of the team(or at the party) actually attacked her, which ones were accomplices, and which ones were not involved?

?

Which statement are you trying to make?

and what is it "telling"?

"Read" the police report, it will answer all your questions.