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.

Just A Reminder

 

Just to remind everyone of something, before voting. I stole the meme from Facebook.

Abbie Hoffman Moment

This is Abbie Hoffman's answer in court, during the Chicago Seven trial, concerning why he introduced a pig as a presidential candidate during a protest. He might not even be able to distinguish between Donald Trump and the chosen mascot!

Abbie Hoffman Moment

 

"I regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country."

Abbie Hoffman, after being found guilty of "flag desecration" in New York, in 1968. He was wearing the shirt pictured above.

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Insight

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?

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Insight

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?

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Words uttered by Abbie Hoffman in court in Washington, D.C., in 1968, after being found guilty of desecrating the United States flag by wearing a shirt that resembled the same. The whole event was dubbed, "the trial of Abbie Hoffman's shirt."

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.

 

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!

Noble Rick Pendland Bound Over For Trial

Here is an update to Noble Rick Pendland's adventures with the judicial system: today, he was bound bound over for trial in a case involving five victims and five counts of aggravated sodomy and three counts of indecent liberties with a child. Another victim came forward, and that will be a separate case. It will not be a big surprise if even more victims come forward, since a lot of parents, students, and foster children complained about him, while Kansas essentially told them to shut up and bend over for Mr. Pendland. The arraignment will be at 3:30 PM on June 21 in Cowley County Court, Kansas. What a way to celebrate Summer Solstice!

If you can stand one more update, here is a short clip of what happened in court today:

This is what the superintendent of USD 470 (Kansas Public Schools) did not want anyone to know. This is also what social services in Kansas, or social rehabilitative services, does not want the rest of the nation to know about foster care placements for children in Kansas. In fact, a foster child who later became an adoptive child in Kansas, Adam Herrman, has been missing since 1999, and no real efforts have been made to find him. His biological father was never contacted before SRS decided to allow the people who "lost" him to adopt him, either. It is time for the Kansas foster care industry to go into receivership.