Posted on 03/14/2006 1:05:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A suburban teenager accused of stabbing his mother 111 times withdrew his guilty plea Monday after a judge rejected a plea deal that would have freed him within 34 years.
Christopher Dankovich, 16, faces a March 27 preliminary examination on charges of murder and using a computer to commit a crime.
"I feel a responsibility to society," Oakland County Circuit Court Judge John J. McDonald said in rejecting the deal prosecutors and defense attorneys had worked out. The judge said a prison term of 22 1/2 to 34 years was too light for the crime.
Mitchell Ribitwer, Dankovich's attorney, said he would use an insanity defense at trial.
Dankovich was 15 when his mother, Diane Michele, was stabbed to death on April 24, 2005. Authorities have said she had discovered her son was using the Internet to look at pornography and learn how to make weapons.
The teenager was arrested at his family's cabin in St. Helen, more than 100 miles to the north.
Bit of a calculated risk, though. If the defense can get the jury to buy the insanity defense, then he goes to the loony bin--and, the way things go nowadays, probably gets released in fairly short order. It's the correct move, but risky.
}:-)4
I heard from someone that you are one who thinks like I do. Imagine my surprise when I read that judge thought this was TOO LIGHT! Sorry, I should've said delight!
I will ping the 'someone.'
Pinging CA - check this out!
How quaint, a judge uses his inherent discretion in a way that pleases a given person and hooray for the man in the black robe. But, let the same judge exercise his judicial discretion in another case that displeases the same poster, and the judge becomes a demonic, usurping judicial tyrant. Thus, it's situational ethics and partisan predispositions that drive the opinion of an observer. It is subjectively based and not founded in objective analysis.
"...it's situational ethics and partisan predispositions that drive the opinion of an observer. It is subjectively based and not founded in objective analysis."
Uh-huh. Which one of the 111 stabs was subjective? What part of "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" is unclear? When a judge upholds the moral law we must support the judge.
When a judge bends the law subjectively AWAY from moral law, that is indeed when they are usurping judicial tyrants.
"I feel a responsibility to society," Oakland County Circuit Court Judge John J. McDonald said in rejecting the deal prosecutors and defense attorneys had worked out. The judge said a prison term of 22 1/2 to 34 years was too light for the crime.
So often we see folks complaining about the judges on the bench, O Reilly will even take a few to task. So, when I read what this guy had to say, well we should first say, he is doing his job and bravo. But, when so few seem to be stepping up as Judge McDonald did today than perhaps we need to go that extra step and really voice our appreciation. I hope a few will agree.
C'mon, he was performing a retroactive abortion. Nothing wrong with that. /SARCASM
111 times? Talk about compulsive.
Agreed
I wonder if this kid was ever taken to church or if he could list the 10 commandments. I would think not.
I have to agree with you it might be risky but the JUDGE took a stand ... and I admire him for that.
So many seem to waffle or just go along. I am just thrilled with this guy.
Please expand on your thoughts of the poster?
/sarc
If she had just left him alone, he would have found someone else to kill.
It's obviously her own fault.
So9
Excellent comment ... not sure why someone would take issue with the fact that a judge decided to exercise his authority and rejected the plea deal.
Judge McDonald has been known as a hardass but fair judge for a good many years, so this is no abberation on his part. The kid could have done a bunch better in choosing an atty, though, IMO. (I live nearby, and I believe there is an excellent chance that Ribitwer is already on McD's shitlist from long before this case began)
My congratulations go to Judge McDonald.
I enthusiastically agree with the judge. The defendant was not a part of my post, it was focused on the comment made not the case, the court or the defendant.
So how long in actual time is 22 1/2 years. Time off for good behavior, time served, he was young. What does this sentence really mean ??? 10 years.?
He deserves our sympathy -- he just lost his mother.
{/lame joke}
I doubt the killer has enough money for lawyers that are good enough to pull the insanity defense successfully. A competent lawyer could, without that much trouble, prove an insanity defense, however if this kid is going with a ‘public defendant’ (aka court-appointed defendants) then that will not be the case. The judge made the right decision, and one that I highly doubt will backfire.
There is still some risk though …..after all there are some public defendants who are actually quite capable, however I doubt the risk is that much. With that said there is a big reason why 90% of all convictions in the US stem from plea bargains. With a plea bargain (almost) everyone is happy:
- Court-appointed defendants are only paid for the first 15-20 hours worth of work, thus they have little incentive to prolong a case.
- Prosecutors hate to lose cases, thus a plea bargain is like an instant feather in their cap.
- It saves the local government money. Let me illustrate this with an example given by Dirk Olin (national editor of ‘The American Lawyer’): There are 100 cases a year; the D.A. has a budget of $100,000. With only $1,000 to spend investigating and prosecuting each case, half the defendants will be acquitted. But if the D.A. can get 90 defendants to cop pleas, he can concentrate his resources on the 10 who refuse, spend $10,000 on each case and get a conviction rate of 90 percent.
The only issue is the defendant. It could even be argued that most defendants should say no to plea bargains, but the vast majority of people who accept them do not know better (and they are told by their court-appointed defendants, and most who accept them are people who cannot afford true legal representation, that they should opt for them). Thus when told that by pleading guilt they will get a lighter sentence, and that if they go for a full trial they will lose and get the full letter of the law (and especially when it is their court-appointed lawyer telling them this), most people will opt for a plea.
Someone with money to fight a case should simply not go that route (at least in most cases). On the other hand, an ax-murderer who is on tap for the electric chair due to a first-degree murder rap, and who is either facing solid evidence against him or a weak defence (read: court-appointed defendant), would be better off copping a plea since then the first-degree charge (with ol’ sparky looming on the horizon) would be dropped for the lesser second-degree murder charge.
On the other hand even ‘solid evidence’ is not that solid when one has enough money to get good legal representation. Think about people like OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Robert Blake. All 3 cases would have convicted ‘normal’ (read: average discretionary income) people, and done so easily, but add lawyers that can milk a snake and suddenly all 3 men are scott free.
Anyways, I don’t think the judge made a mistake here. This kid is going down, and going down hard!
BTTT
My mom was friends with Diane. She would always look forward to the lunches they had each month. Loosing a friend is always hard, but they way it happened in this case - you can't imagine the shock, confusion and sicking feelings. The judge did the right thing.
Another "what happened to dad" story.
Ok, one reasonable judge out of how many?
Take the rest out and stone them.
I've heard it said that the entire court system in the country would shut down if everyone with a traffic ticket pled not guilty. The courts couldn't handle them and almost all would have to be thrown out.
They seldom do.
I appreciate that clarification. I do not know the judge but I thought it was applaudable that he say no to the plea deal.
It seems that perhaps that he would rather the jury decide on such a sentence as he would have to return one day to their community.
looks like there is no shortage of money here, just a waste of it....
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/042705/loc_20050427004.shtml
It makes sense if we knew the time off for good behavior calculation.
It's just me but, I think the insanity defense will fly.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Many Freepers are loathe to admit that they want activist judges as long as they think like they do. Good post.
That will never happen though (unless the perps study game theory, and then decide AS A WHOLE to refuse plea bargains).
My prayers out to the family and your mom.. my mother also lost a friend to a violent murder.. death is hard enough without these kinds of things.
And how would that be bad thing... A 'plea deal' is basically 'a confession under duress for the promise of a lighter sentence'. The founding fathers of this country would be disgusted by the practice of 'plea deals'.
It only took Lizzie Borden 40 whacks with an axe. More evidence of the dumbing down of society.
Most likely supply and demand would kick in. The punishments for a plea bargain would drop and the ones for taking it to trial would rise until enough took the plea bargains.
If you are caught in possession of drugs, would you take a fine and a couple weeks in jail, or risk having the prosecutor claim that you were a distrubutor and chance a life sentence?
Another think I'm surprised about is that more people arrested don't assert their right for a speedy trial. "OK, if you have the evidence to arrest me, try me next week. If you can't do that, then drop the charge and release me until you can get a trial date."
I'd say that the reason is due to most people who take plea bargains not knowing any better. Imagine you were some small-fry perp caught with several rocks of crack, and your court-appointed attorney tells you that your best bet would be to plead guilty and go for a lighter sentence. This lawyer will also tell you that your fate is sealed (and that the 'evidence' is 'rock solid' and 'infallible'), and that if you decide to go to trial you will just be adding years and sorrow to your sentence. Your attorney also 'forgets' to tell you that if you plead you lose the chance for an acquital, and also 'forgets' to tell you that he/she is paid only for the first 15-20 hours (and thus has no incentive in taking your case far). Now, also imagine that you have no legal background (apart from being a very good lookout for cops in your 'hood), and you just want the whole ordeal to end. In such circumstances you would be hard-pressed to not take the plea bargain.
There are some cases where it is prudent to go for a plea-bargain, but such cases are not many. Definitely not at the current level whereby 90% of convictions are plea-bargains. Most of the people opting for them know not what they are doing (and I doubt they are fully informed of what is going on anyways .....fully informed).
As a lawyer, I have a few thoughts about this case. First of all, no one has mentioned that an insanity defense is entirely inconsistent with even an attempted plea bargain. When you plead insanity, you must convince the jury that you were incapable of comprehending the wrongful nature of your acts at the time the crime was committed. But a plea bargain involving a guilty plea is an entirely rational act based on enlightened self-interest. In fact, before any such guilty plea can be accepted, the trial judge must first ascertain, on the record, that it was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that there is an adequate factual and legal basis for the plea. For the defendant in this case to offer to "waive" the issue of his alleged mental incapacity in exchange for a lesser prison term makes no sense if he was, in fact, mentally infirm. Of course, the jury will never be given the opportunity to learn all this until after the trial's over, so . . .
Second, I must disagree wit those who think an insanity plea would probably work if the defendant had a slick enough lawyer. Insanity pleas work best in cases when there is no apparent motive, and this case doesn't appear to fall into that category. Likewise, the utter brutality and wanton cruelty of a given attack can generally be turned against the defendant by a skillful prosecutor. So all in all, I think the defense team is quite unhappy right now -- which is generally a good sign to anyone but the criminal defense bar and the ACLU.
Finally, as to the alleged tendency of some here to decry "judicial activism" except when it pleases the poster, one must keep in mind that what this judge did is explicitly permitted under the law of nearly every state. What tends to bother me is when judges attempt to justify the exercise of raw, virtually unrestrained judicial power which is barely constitutionally permissible by claiming that it is actually constitutionally mandated.
Thanks for ping and update. Good for the Judge.
Hey friends, just wanted to say thanks for the terrific comments. I also wanted to add a pet peeve and that this news article got moved to "general/chat."
Why the frustration. Well, in the last few months, judges and their inabilities have been brought up in the NATIONAL news quite a bit. The guy from Vermont to another most recent named Conner.
Nationally folks are angry. They feel that many aren't doing their jobs.
Than an article showing a judge DOING his duties becomes available. In a case that has received quite of bit of attention. It wasn't a ho hum article, it was one of judicial action. I am sure there is a more legal/professional word but the judge decided to the right thing. Again, I am sure there is a legal term of how his ruling, that he denied the plea deal, differed from a judge who say tries to change a sentence (the reduction of a sex offender's sentence).
This judge should be praised, this article should be passed along to your newspaper's, other judges should be made aware of McDonald's actions, to remind them of how judges should judge from the bench.
Sorry for the rant, I really thought more of this article than "general/chat" this imho was an impressive judge ... JUST DOING HIS JOB.
agreed
ONE example of a Judge who has used his legitimate and lawful discretion in a good way.....now it will be up to a jury, as it should be.
FWiW, atty Ribitwer just today had a client who killed another mans entire family while driving at 0.32 drunk (0.08 is legally drunk here) get sentenced such that he will serve at least 19 years before even being considered eligible for parole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.