Antolin Garcia Torres; Guilty But No Death Penalty

Guilty, but no death penalty. Antonlin Garcia Torres, who was found guilty last month of the murder of  Sierra Lamar, the fifteen year old who disappeared in 2012 while waiting for her school bus in California, will spend the rest of his life in prison, but was spared the death penalty.

Dylann Roof Found Guilty

Dylann Roof, the twenty-two year old monster who shot nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, was found guilty today. He stated that he chose the South Carolina church and the people at the bible study because he wanted to commit a crime against black people, and he thought that people in church wouldn't fight back. His rhetoric on Facebook also sounds a lot like Donald Trump's rhetoric, during his campaign for president.

The pastor of the church, Clementa Pinckney, was killed in the incident. Reverend Pinckney was also a United States senator, representing South Carolina. What is not known is why Governor Sam Brownback, of Kansas, did not order the flags at half staff, following Clementa Pinckney's death, as he did for John Glenn, Antonin Scalia, and the victims of the Paris terrorist attack in November of 2015.

What Kept The Etan Patz Jury From Guilty Verdict?

Etan Patz disappeared on his way to school in the Soho neighborhood in New York, in 1979. He was only six years old. He has never been found, and there have not been many viable leads or suspects over the years. In 2010, a basement was dug up in search of remains, but none were found. There have been age progressed pictures, and another suspect, Jose Ramos, the significant other of a babysitter sometimes used by Etan's family, was successfully sued in civil court by the Patz's in a wrongful death suit. There was never enough evidence to charge him in criminal court.

In 2012, an emotionally unstable man named Pedro Hernandez told law enforcement that he had killed a child. Members of his church supported that story, stating that he had repeated his account of having killed a child since the early 1980's. As for the remains, Hernandez claimed he had put the body in the trash. He was finally arrested, and his case went to trial. Aside from a haphazard confession, seven hours of which were not recorded, there was no evidence. Hernandez did not even get the name of the child he allegedly killed, and because there were no remains, against which to compare dental records or DNA for a positive identification, jurors would have had to make not only the leap that Hernandez actually did the deed, but that the victim was truly Etan Patz. Suppose Hernandez actually killed someone, but it wasn't Etan? Would Etan get justice? Or would a killer still be free to commit another murder?

The trial ended in a hung jury, and the judge finally declared a mistrial. There was one juror who did not agree that guilt should be determined in an American court with no evidence. It is a bit disturbing that only one juror would hold out, resisting the social pressure to convict without evidence, but thankfully, at least one person was willing to demand that the judicial system work the way it was designed to work. Coercion of a mentally ill suspect for hours on end by police is not likely to result in reliable information. And why would seven hours of such a conversation not have been recorded, so as to be available to a jury, later on? Could the seven hours possibly have been erased in order to preserve the ability of involved police officers to lie their asses off and get the wrong man convicted, thereby closing the case? With so many open and loose ends here, that seems like a distinct possibility. The only other supporting "evidence" the prosecution had were a few disorganized statements from Hernandez's former churchmates, claiming that he had "said he killed someone." Great. If he had really made such statements; and he actually may have; why in bloody hell didn't these church people go to the police back in the eighties, when Hernandez told them these things? Not that the statements are evidence, mind you. In the real world, third hand information is called "hearsay".

Hernandez is still in jail, waiting for the mumbo jumbo experts who engineered this mockery of a resolution to a missing persons case to decide when and if they want to retry the case. He is scheduled for a status hearing on June 10, 2015. Hopefully, if the case is tried again, there will at least be evidence and compelling testimony which will lead to the location of Etan Patz, and allow his family closure. 

Courtly Conduct Before Juries

We've been hearing a lot abut jury trials in the news, lately. We also, on a semi-regular basis, hear a lot about the press, social media, and the first amendment. But does anyone truly understand the sanctity of a jury decision, and the purpose of the protections of the same, both before and after the decision is rendered? Apparently, there is some misunderstanding, as a rather high profile case, that of the murder trial of Aaron Hernandez, ran a risk of dismissal shortly before the trial concluded because a reporter chased a vehicle transporting members of a seated jury in order to obtain pictures, names, and interviews!

What part of "do not sway, taint, or influence a jury" do these reporters not understand? Can they not see that when a defendant invokes his right to a jury trial, all involved parties count on an impartial jury? Before the jury has rendered a decision, this kind of crap can easily bias the jury and rob the defendant of his right to a fair trial. This is why judges are often obliged to invoke orders against discussion about cases by any involved party during trials. How can the court be sure that the jury was not responding to threats or bribes when deliberating the case if others have taken the liberties of influencing jury panels via outside conversation? This can lead to mistrials, miscarriages of justice, and convictions of innocent people.

One more thing this reporter attempted to do that was completely unwise was an attempt to photograph the jury while they were commuting to and from the courthouse. This was the reporter's excuse, as a matter of fact. He thought that merely snapping a picture of jury members was appropriate. He had not considered what might have happened if someone, somewhere had been dissatisfied with the verdict, and decided to use the information and pictures provided by the media in an attempt to gain some sort of vengeance on any member of the jury who could be identified. It seems that, thanks to social media and peer pressure in general, there is already enough temptation to "go with the flow" and do what everyone else is doing, and never do one's own thinking. In court, a jury is depended upon to depart from peer pressure and make it's decision as individuals, looking critically at the facts, not public opinion. Why should the media interfere with this process?

Where's The Real Killer, Alabama?

This past week, an innocent man was freed from death row in Alabama, after being held hostage by the judicial system for nearly thirty years. After a murder in 1985, a trial, involving actual evidence, apparently was not important. Ballistics from the alleged murder weapon, as in whether or not the bullets actually came from the gun police randomly decided COULD have been the murder weapon, were never even requested by the prosecution. The defense had only a limited amount to spend on expert testimony, and no one cared. Anthony Ray Hinton spent thirty years on death row for a crime he did not commit.

Prosecutors are not held to very high standards. There is a prosecutor in Northeast Kansas whose son damaged her vehicle by driving it through a neighbor's crops, and when the neighbor complained and the vehicle wouldn't run properly, she attempted to accuse a random constituent (who happens to be an older woman who has never worked on cars) of sabotage! No demand for responsibility on the part of her own son! She even fixed the vehicle her son damaged and gave it back to him, allowing him, once again, to prey upon the neighbors' fields, gardens, and mailboxes! But that's small potatoes compared to Hinton's case, and others like it, that have been bungled, not only because of prosecutorial misconduct and indifference, but enabled by the level of comfort felt by the general public when the wrong person, in an inordinate number of cases, a black person, is convicted of a crime he or she did not commit. In this case, no one even looked for the actual perpetrator, who apparently got away with murder. How many more murders could this person have committed in thirty years?

Half a life behind bars cannot actually be repaid to Mr. Hinton. Neither can a damaged reputation or thirty years worth of lost opportunities. How will the prosecution go about attempting to make right any murders committed by the real killer in this case, who was never prosecuted? Was the racist indifference worth it, Alabama?

Precedence In Case Law To Allow Strangulation?

I was just informed by a rather persistent troll that because of a recent Kansas court case, one in which yours truly was a witness, there is now a precedent to strangle our relatives, friends, and neighbors. My troll is very, very upset because the defendant demanded his right to a trial, presented his case, and won. The charges were false, as nearly as I could tell, from what I witnessed of the incident. A desire to see an innocent man sent to prison is certainly disturbing, but such tends to be the manner of Christianity in the Midwest. The troll has even proposed hosting a party for such violence, offering that it is now legal. Hopefully, this was not a threat.

Precedence in court cases refers to cases in which existing law is interpreted either in a new way, or cases to which the court determines that existing law applies in situations where it traditionally has not applied in the past. This allows new or expanded interpretations of existing law, and sometimes different resulting actions or court orders. The prevailing decision will set a "precedent". All of this is based upon actual law. The laws, themselves, do not change. Crime does not become legal this way.

A decision by a judge or by a jury that a defendant is not guilty of criminal charges does not set a precedent for that crime to become legal. This is where my troll lacks understanding. In a criminal case, the argument is not about whether or not the crime is legal, but about whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime. A verdict of not guilty only serves to absolve the defendant of any false charges, it does not change the law.

The defendant in this case finds it unusual that certain people who had flown under the banner of "friends", mostly employees at the sorry-assed excuse for a local public school in his town, have not congratulated him because he won his case. Even more nauseating are teachers who continue to tell children, including those in close association with the defendant's children, that he is guilty, in spite of the decision by the court was that he is not guilty. These teachers practically climbed over each other to badmouth the defendant before trial, yet upon acquittal, refuse to apologize or tell all to whom they have unjustly gossiped that they were wrong. The superintendent was unaware of the court's decision until recently. Shouldn't these Christian teachers, who never miss an opportunity to force their religion on others, admit they made a mistake and try to amend all the damage they have done? Or does Jesus only initiate assholes to join his petty and ridicules churches?

Justice And Magistrate Court In Marshall County Kansas

Anyone experiencing legal problems in Marshall County Kansas, as a plaintiff, defendant, or as a witness, should be aware of his or her constitutional rights. Any attorney you hire should practice mostly outside of Marshall County. You should not hire anyone who cares about the political gossip structure of Marshall County, because a lawyer who cares more about local politics than about your case will not truly represent you. If you are a defendant, you should demand a jury trial if you can. While copping a plea may seem less expensive and easier, a jury of your peers will usually be more fair to you than the prosecutor or the magistrate judge. You have the right to bypass a bench trial with the magistrate judge and go directly to a jury trial, if you so choose. If you have a public defender, make sure he understands this. If he tells you that you cannot have a jury trial, he is lying. If you are found not guilty, you may actually save money in the long run, because you won't have to pay court costs, fees, fines, ect. You also won't have a criminal record. If Laura McNish, the Marshall County prosecutor, threatens you or tries to scare you, remember that she is a dishonest bully, and scare tactics are all she actually has in the way of tools of her trade. Once she is in the courtroom, she comes across as an idiot with no talent or skill. She also lacks insight in the job of prosecuting crime, and goes to court unprepared for trial. A defendant who does not accept a plea is a serious problem in her life. Unless she can intimidate witnesses or charm a jury with exceptionally believable lies, she has no compelling courtroom presence. Even if you have a public defender appointed to your case, tell him you want a jury trial. If he says no, insist upon contacting the Kansas Bar Association, and when you go to your first court appearance, stubbornly refuse a plea or a bench trial. Laura McNish and Angela Hecke are both as woefully ignorant of the law, and of life outside of the Midwest as the wizard in the Wizard of Oz was of "wizardry". Oh....if you are a witness, remember that it is unlawful to lie in court, even if the prosecuting attorney asks you to do it for her.

 

Because of Laura McNish's lack of expertise as a lawyer, actual crime in Marshall County Kansas generally goes unnoticed, uninvestigated, and unprosecuted until the KBI or the FBI becomes involved. She is only proficient in prosecuting petty crimes and intimidating those who do not understand their rights and are too weak to stand up for themselves.

 

Derrick Deacon Is Finally Free

Derrick Deacon just got released from prison in New York, after serving almost twenty-five years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. After new testimony and new evidence surfaced, Deacon was granted a new trial. It took a jury all of nine minutes to find Deacon "Not Guilty" with the new evidence. Congratulations to Derrick Deacon for standing up for himself all these years, but why did he get convicted in the first place? It seems that the district attorney's office in Kings county, New York, didn't have the balls to go after a gang member who shot a teenager during a robbery, so police arrested a homeless man, Deacon, instead. A young woman by the name of Colleen Campbell saw the actual killer, and told law enforcement. While she did not know the identity of the actual killer, she knew who Deacon was, and that he did not commit the murder. This should have been sufficient, in the absence of any other evidence, to rule Deacon out. but not so fast......gangs are dangerous and notorious for vengeance, and homeless people do not put up much of a fight when coerced and pushed around, and Kings County needed a conviction, right? A homeless man is much safer to victimize than a gang member, so the prosecutor saw to it that Deacon was arrested and prosecuted for the crime, instead of the guilty party. When Campbell didn't want to convict an innocent man, investigators and prosecutors threatened to have her children removed from her home!

"Deacon's case raises troubling questions about how he was convicted in the first place. The Village Voice reports that Deacon was convicted after investigators coerced a witness named Colleen Campbell, who knew he hadn't commited the crime.

At Deacon's retrial, Campbell said authorities had threatened to take her kids away if she testified that she knew Deacon wasn't the killer, according to the Village Voice. Another witness testified that Deacon did commit the shooting, which was enough to convict him."......Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo News.

Since when does testifying in court, or not testifying in court, or telling the truth, for that matter.....equal child abuse or child neglect? This stunt of threatening the children of witnesses in order to gain untruthful testimony seems to be a prosecutor's ace in the hole, these days! Is this the true role of Child Protective Services, assisting prosecutors in the attainment of wrongful convictions by threatening to hold hostage the children of witnesses? That might help explain why caseloads are bursting at the seams, and why Child Protective Services isn't always available to the child who actually needs them! Taxpayers are forced to pay them to enforce the whims of crooked court officials! Sad, but apparently true.

Twenty-five years of an innocent man's life.

 

The Marysville Advocate, The Nice Newspaper

There was a jury trial that lasted all day in Marysville, yesterday. The defendant, Keith Henry, was found not guilty on all charges. Since a jury trial is rather unusual in Marshall County, how come the Marysville Advocate has not given this much notice? There are always headlines in the Advocate when a defendant loses; why not when Justice speaks by exonerating someone who is not guilty? In fact, why isn't there ever much coverage of anything controversial in the Marysville Advocate? From the Keystone Pipeline to one of the school districts on the verge of losing financial solvency, (USD 380) there are certainly enough "good" topics involving Marshall County and Northeast Kansas about which to begin a constructive conversation. Instead, the Marysville Advocate only publishes articles about subjects that are "nice", and won't stir up much of a reaction from it's readers.

Yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwn! Are Nice and Good the same thing? 

The staff at the Marysville Advocate should be ashamed of their willingness to smear an innocent person and let the truth go unheralded when that person is exonerated by a jury of his peers. Reporting when the county prosecutor gets her posterior parts handed to her on a platter actually makes better reading than the redundant guilty verdicts, and would serve to force the prosecutor to be more honest and professional and less likely to play on the internet all day.

Congratulations, Keith!

Court Proceedings In Kansas

This past Wednesday, in Topeka, Kansas, a young man named Austin Tabor was, I repeat, WAS, on trial for the murder of another young man, Matthew Mitchell, in October of 2010. While the courthouse allows people to take cell phones, and other odds and ends, such as camaras inside, it is still a distinct no-no to take pictures of certain individuals, such as jury members, during a trial. The judge in this case reiterated the warning to everyone, but a reporter from the Topeka Capitol Journal went ahead and snapped a shot of the backs of a couple of people's heads, the silluette of a jury member beside the window, and the tops of a couple of jury members' heads. She tweeted this image to her employers, who went ahead and published it online. Later in the day, the judge was sent a message concerning the contempt of her orders, and she declared a mistrial.

Judging from the comments that have been printed from readers of the Topeka Capitol Journal, it would seem that a lot of Kansans do not understand why this mistake was so costly and unprofessional. Not only does a new court date have to be set amid courthouse furloughs designed to save money, but a new jury has to be seated. Also, the defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, and the victim's family has a right to see justice. The journalist interferred with those things when she defied the judge's order to leave the jury unphotographed and unidentified.

The above situation is sad enough, but here is something even more troubling; it's a comment from a reader of one of the stories about this journalist and her published twitter photo. Here it is:

"I can say that the reporter's mistake wasn't the first mistake made in the trial that could have possibly caused a mistrial. The victim's mother disregarded instructions given to the jury pool before we watched the official jury video. We were instructed to not take notes unless instructed. She also ignored the judge's instructions to all persons not in the jury pool to leave the room. As each potential juror was called, she recorded that person's name in her small 4x6 notebook. When a person was dismissed for cause, she crossed out that persons name and recorded the name of the replacement. And even though the prosecutor's witness list was part of the filing prior to jury selection, she also recorded the names on that list. She left before lunch when a male came in to the courtroom and signalled her. As she was leaving, even the judge asked her if she was part of the pool and she said no. It may not seem to some as a big deal, but if you knew that a member of the victim's family recorded your name in a notebook, you would probably feel intimidated on some levels."

The judge told everyone not in the jury pool to leave! Instead, one person thought it would be okay to disregard the judge and stay! What was she going to do with all of the names of chosen jury members? Kill them, if they did not return the verdict she desired? Perhaps the errant journalist saved a life by necessitating a mistrial.

Seamus O'Riley's Unthinking Following

 

Anonymous said...

Juli Henry said... The jury was obviously thinking about the constitution in our country, the law, and the way our judicial system works. They were following instructions extreemly well under the circumstances, which inolved lots and lots of media, and they were listening very carefully for EVIDENCE, which was never presented. The case was WEAK from the start, folks, realize it! The duct tape on Caylee's face was only evidence that there was duct tape on Caylee's face. It may be "common sense" to ASSUME it was Casey, and I am reasonably sure it was, but ASSUMPTIONS cannot amount to EVIDENCE! Our justice system simply cannot work that way. Why won't the populace look at themselves and ask why the State of Florida, or "The People" didn't work harder to bring a stronger case? That's where the disconnect took place. It wasn't the Jury. They did what they were supposed to do. Casey played this game very strategically from a what appeared to be a losing position. Had the prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement played by the rules, a stonger case would have resulted. This should be a lesson to everyone about arrogence.....prosecuting attorneys thought they were better/smarter/more educated/ect. than Casey, went to court with a sloppily prepared case, thinking it would be slam-dunk, because they were "better" then she, and look...they lost. _________ So, the Prosecution lost its case, because it was suffering from a superiority complex? Wow, that would be hilarious, if it weren't so fantastical and sad. When I clicked on your username, your profile page on Blogger popped up. You describe yourself there as a "professional troublemaker". In addition, one of your two blogs is a homage to "Tarot" readings, an occult practice based on fantasy and a deck of cards. How fitting, though, that Killer's defense team, along with the jury, would be complemented by the above poster, since their shenanigans in court, and the resulting unjust verdict, were routed in fantastical thinking, too.

This was what another poster over at Seamus O'Riley Statement Analysis had to say to me about my opinion that the jury in the Casey Anthony trial simply did their job, to the best of their ability, doing the best they could with the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that was presented to them. I am just amazed at the number of people in this country who do not understand our justice system and how it works. Yes; it looks very much like Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her daughter. It really does; but in order to convict, a jury needs more than just assumptions and circumstantial evidence. Could the prosecution have obtained it? Yes, I think so, if they had gone to the trouble. I really think the prosecuting attorney felt that he was smarter and better educated that Casey Anthony, and that he could wrap this whole case up without actually doing any work, especially if he made sure the media got everyone agitated. Unfortunately, for the prosecution, our justice system doesn't work that way. And.....just look at Project Innocence and it's statistics! Personal feelings, assumptions, and circumstantial evidence have sent many an innocent person to jail! Even with Casey Anthony walking, I do not want to turn back the clock to the Salem Witch trials and no DNA evidence. I truly love this country and I don't want the presumption of innocent until proven guilty to change. Sorry, anonomous poster who doesn't like me because of my tarot cards, troublemaking career, and opinion which differs from yours. You feel that my thinking is "fantastical"? Well........if you thought they jury on the Anthony trial could convict with no evidence, YOUR thinking was obviously more "fantastical" than mine ever could be. And I did not compliment the jury. I called out the prosecution on a weak case because I did not think they cared about the child who got killed.