I apologize for taking so long to return.
Yes it MIGHT be grounds. One appeals judge wasn’t convinced of it.
Which I think is less noteworthy than the fact that two judges were convinced of it.
And this might be a great retort, IF this same appeal had not been rejected years ago. For some reason, another panel of judges found this to be a flawed appeal.
There's a concept here that goes unaddressed. It's the one that most people accept that Leftist judges are legislating from the bench. However, when it comes to letting criminals loose, all of a sudden there is a crowd here who thinks it's always based on rock solid legal grounds.
Do we have problem Leftist judges wreaking havoc on our nation or not? I have submitted from the start, this is a case that has already been decided. I touched on the first court trial. I now touch on the rejection of the former appeal on the same grounds.
I submit there must be some aspect of this we are not hearing, or the first appeals court appearance would have freed this guy, and this panel would have been unanimous.
So essentially weeks or months worth of trail, the jury deliberating, the judge doing his best, the district attorney doing his best... it all rests in the hands of one liberal judge at any given time.
No, not really. The judges didn’t overturn the decision based on any of the facts that were at question during the trial. They just ruled that the case should never have made it to trial in the first place, because the District Attorney, far from “doing his best”, used legal trickery to try to skirt the statute of limitations.
Which was all evident during the first appeal. So this is not as readily acceptable as the defense claimed it to be.
Does it tell you they were incompetent, or does it tell you they knew they were going to lose based on the evidence, and they wanted to get their guy sprung?
As possible as anything else we’re discussing here, they did it on purpose and two appellate judges fell right into it.
I really don’t see much point in trying to guess what the attorneys were thinking.
Except you don't mind at all trying to guess here what the prosecuting attorneys were thinking, do you. It's just the defense attorneys you are unwilling to ascribe ulterior motives.
A good attorney would try to get their client freed by any means possible. However, to say that the judges “fell for” some trickery by the attorneys is just absurd. The defense attorneys had no power to force the DA to overcharge their client and put the case at jeopardy. That was the DA’s decision.
And here you talk of the absurdity of my argument based on the fact the defense attorneys couldn't force the prosecutors to do something wrong, and yet a former appeals court found that the prosecuting attorneys did nothing wrong. Curious.
Yes, someone has over-ruled a jury here. This man is now deemed innocent. What did the jury deem him?
No, nobody overruled a jury. They simply negated the trial, and those are two completely different things. Yes, the jury found him guilty, but apparently what they found him guilty of was not a prosecutable crime under the law, since the statue of limitations had expired.
They simply negated a trial. And this means to you that the jury verdict was not nullified. LOL. You can prance around this all you like. The conclusion is the same. If the appeal is as clear cut as you accept it to be, then you have to believe that the firearm possession in the trial was something his attorneys failed to address, or the original judge, the prosecuting attorneys, and the first appellate court judges were all wrong ignorant of the law or worse. I'm not buying it.
It’s over. They can’t even try him again, based on the judge’s opinion the statute time had run out.
Good. If the statute is up, they shouldn’t have charged him in the first place.
Yes, it would be great, if the fist judge, the prosecuting attorneys, and the appellate court judges were all ignorant of the law or worse. That's an interesting opinion to adopt. I'm not buying it.
It is still very unsettling that a guy can do what this guy was found guilty of, and he’s going to be set scott free based on the real likelihood that not your or my arguments hold sway here, but rather a liberal judge entered into the mix.
Well, guilty people go free every single day in this country, and I, for one, wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s the price we pay to live in a land with careful jurisprudence. If you make it easier to prosecute the guilty, then you also make it a lot easier to persecute the innocent, and governments have already proven they can’t be trusted not to abuse that power.
Which is so much horse stuff as it relates to this case. Charges were brought by the local district attorney. This guy was convicted by a jury. A trial judge found the process to be fair. The possession of the gun charge was deemed reasoned based on the evidence at the time. The first appeals court agreed. Now one swing judge, perhaps a Carter, Clinton, or Obama appointee is deemed to be the deliverer of truth justice and the American way. LOL- - -
This case did not rest on lies, ginned up or left out evidence.
Oh come on. The excuse they used to upgrade the charges was that the man used a firearm during commission of a felony.
And as addressed earlier, there were a number of people along the way who agreed, including one panel of appellate court judges.
This is a man who was not at the scene of the felony that was committed, and they had no witness stating that he was there, with or without a firearm, or that he was even carrying a firearm at the time the crime was committed. They simply used the fact that he was an active FBI agent, and carried a sidearm as part of his job, to assume that he must have been carrying a firearm at the time.
And of course you accept that these same facts were not present prior to this recent ruling. There's something going on here, that we are not aware of. Otherwise this guy would have been freed during the first appeal. If it was as simple as you make it out to be, this guy would have been freed years ago. You would have us believe that everyone in this case was either corrupted, or ignorant all along the way, except the one swing judge on this appeals court panel. I am very suspect of that line of reasoning.
If you can’t see the chicanery in that line of reasoning, and how it violates the spirit of the felony upgrade statutes, then I don’t know what to tell you.
The district attorney's office, the first judge, the first jury, the first appeals court panel, each agreed with me. I appreciate your efforts to cast me as using flawed logic. I'm sure all the other people along the way do also.
At this point, it still makes a lot more sense to think one liberal judge appointment is what this latest ruling all boils down to.