Posted on 11/13/2006 11:55:37 AM PST by mathprof
Don't be surprised, if we end up with a Dem President in '08, that he gets a Presidential Pardon, somewhere down the road.
The U.S. Supreme Court generally reviews cases on constitutional grounds and does not serve as a trial court.
The large majority of Greenwich residents have "old" money,and I'd say that 98% of Belle Haven's residents have it.
It's a good thing the Supreme's don't have to waste their time on such cases. How did this fellow get his to this point?
The Skakels got rich operating docks on the Great Lakes, storing and selling pet coke from refineries.
By paying lawyers lots of money to file numerous appeals. The fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case tells me this desperate effort was doomed from the start.
Olsen probably was interested in the legal argument more than the client. It is an interesting legal question. Law & Order has done similarly themed shows, especially on catching somebody 20 years later who committed murder as a teen. Or catching somebody who said something incriminating pre miranda, and does it count. Ted Olsen just likely wanted to argue the law here with not a great shot of winning, plus he got paid well I am sure.
money, and his family connections.
Mafia money and a trashy family ... royalty, for sure.
I think it had something to do with whether the prosecution of this case violated some sort of statute of limitations on non-capital murder what was in place in CT for a short time.
There were also some interesting questions about whether he should have been tried as an adult or juvenille. He was a couple of days past his 16th birthday at the time of the commission of the crime.
I think ultimately his defense was that he was innocent of the crime, not some technicality or mitigating circumstances.
Truly a sad case. I kind of leaned towards his brother for this crime.
Unless there is more to this, Olsen seemed to have good legal grounds. The statute, apparently, differentiated capital one, with Murder in the second. However, if nobody is charged, how can you determine what was capital murder to a precise degree?
My guess is that they wanted to differentiate pre-meditated murder with crimes of passion on the books.
Carolyn
The innocent are few and far between on the defense side.
I agree.I acknowledge that it's highly unlikely that *everyone* charged with a serious crime in this country is,in fact,guilty as charged.
However,it's a long way from "ladies and gentlemen of the jury...my client just didn't commit this crime" to "ladies and gentlemen of the jury...every fingerprint,every drop of my client's blood and every other piece of evidence was planted by racist/crooked/stupid cops and every so-called eyewitness was compelled to testify by the use of threats"...which is basically what most lawyers who know their client is guilty use these days.
Very,Very true. Great post!
Ted Olson was not defending Skakel. He was defending the LAW.
That said I am happy the Supreme Court refused to hear it.
It doesn't matter to me,in this case,at least,what he was "defending".He was *representing* a piece of excrement,which is something I could *never* do.
How can you be given an adult sentence if you did it as a kid, and kids weren't sentenced as adults as the time?
Isn't this essentially ex-post-facto sentencing?
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.