Skip to comments.MILLER: Prosecution rests in trial for D.C. man charged for one shotgun shell
Posted on 02/25/2014 7:19:25 AM PST by rktman
The District of Columbia has finished presenting its case on why Mark Witaschek is a danger to society for possessing a single shotgun shell and muzzleloader sabots in his home. This outrageous legal battle shows how far unelected, anti-gun liberals will go to attempt to destroy a mans life.
When Attorney General Irvin Nathans prosecutors rested on Tuesday, they established simply that Mr. Witaschek did not have a registered gun in the city, so he violated the firearms laws by having ammunition.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Defense should call David Gregory, who will explain that it’s OK to violate DC gun laws if it’s for “education”.
Or if you're a liberal.
Some ambitious Machiavellian seeks to boost his own career by ruining a law-abiding man’s life.
A ‘shell’ game if there ever was one...................
Trying this guy has cost how many millions of tax dollars spent? Our court systems are backed up to the hilt, and they are doing this? Even the judge is in on it. He should have tossed out this stupid case. Since he did not, then he is of the same mind as the prosecutors. Only the jury can stop this madness.
What goes around, comes around.
Seems there are far worse criminals in D.C., many of whom ‘work’ in buildings with large columns out front...
So US citizens have the right to bear REGISTERED arms?
In pre-trial hearings, Judge Morin threw out the first search in June 2012 because the cops neglected to get a warrant.
Are the police on trial for home invasion? Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to DC? He should probably be on trial for having shot home invaders who happened to be rogue, law defying police officers. Oh, that's right, he had already been stripped of his right to bear arms, so he couldn't defend his rights to privacy or property from the fascists in his own home.
Mr. Nathan is best known as the lenient prosecutor who let off NBC News David Gregory for openly and knowingly possessing an illegal 30-round magazine on live TV.
Those who support the police state are above the law.
Mr. Gest replied that Mr. Nathan and our prosecutors believe this is in the interest of public safety because Mr. Witaschek had been accused of domestic violence.
Guilty until proven innocent! (Or something like that).
Show me the man and I'll find you the crime. - Lavrentiy Beria
Mr. Witascheks ex-wife, Gabriella Landinez, told police in May 2012 that her estranged husband had unregistered firearms in the home, and he said that he said he would kill her on the phone one time.
If the ex-wife said it, it must be true!
A friend of mine went through an ugly divorce about ten years ago. During the proceedings, his wife contacted several Federal agencies, alleging that he possessed illegal firearms. His apartment residence was eventually raided by ATF or FBI, (he was interviewed by both). All of his guns were confiscated. He was kicked out of his apartment due to the raid (they wanted no tenants who were under federal investigation).
For several years, he tried to get some ruling on which of his firearms were 'illegal', and a return of those which were legal. He still believes all were legal. In time, and I think with legal advice, he decided to drop the issue.
As far as I know, he was never charged with anything and the weapons were never returned.
Due process, right?
I hope that dump burns to the ground. I will never go to that DC swamp. What an absolute embarassment this nation has become.
A jury trial would be nice but recognizing the uphill battle with a jury (even a DC jury) the prosecution lowered the charges to attempted possession of ammunition for which the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. Hugo Chavez would be proud.
Sounds like a totalitarian government, doesn’t it?
Sounds like something straight out of the pages of Les Miserables.
Since the sentence is less than 6 months, he is not entitled to a jury trial. At least that is how I read it in the article.
This it true — and it is something that judges hate: look at their actions regarding jury-nullification, especially if you mention it in trial (as defense) or during jury-selection (as a potential juror). Look at the
you must convict, even if you disagree-style contracts that are common for jurors to be required to sign.
That's funny, my Constitution says exactly the opposite:
Amendment VIAnd this is especially applicable because DC is not part of any State and therefore all the Bill of Rights's restrictions must apply to them.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Except that the 6th amendment says "for ALL criminal prosecutions" that the accused has the right to "an impartial jury".
Trying to intimate that there is no such right smells like Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Isn’t a “Spent “ Cartridge casing, which is no longer capable of being “Fired” no longer ammunition?
For the past 50 years I have been carrying two small rocks in my pocket. They have protected me all this time from being killed by a Blue Rhinoceros!
With Attorney General Irvin Nathans prosecutors thinking they would be ammunition for they sling/slingshot that I did not have.
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.