It's some crappy reporting, that's for sure. I've never seen anyone ruled "innocent," though I have seen a few "not guilty" verdicts. Only in the last paragraph does the article even touch on the Attorney General's objection and some time limitation that might apply to the case which is preventing his release. But does the writer tell us anything about what that law might be, or why the attorney general objects? Nope.
I don't practice in CA and don't know anything about their three-strikes rule. I suppose that with enough support this fellow might eventually get one more chance at his third strike.
Cheers, John
__________________
FFR1004105RD - world's first twin-turbo BMW V12-powered FFR Roadster
2011 Dodge 2500 Cummins 6.7L - biodiesel-fueled daily driver JHETTO: 2001 VW Jetta TDI, intended as G3F donor, FOR SALE
Well I'm not a lawyer, so forgive me if my logic is false, but if the basic theory is "innocent until proven guilty" and the individual is proven to not be guilty, then wouldn't that mean he is "ruled innocent" if the judge indeed rules that he is not guilty?
If you Google around a bit it turns out that an appeals court overturned his conviction for ineffective council but that ruling is under appeal. If the appeal goes his way, he can get a new trial and possibly make bail which might be hard for a carrier criminal and third-striker.
The guy appealed his trial 6 years past the deadline. The state is contesting the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to prevent a flood of dubious late appeals (precisely the reason there is a deadline).
Mike
__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Frequently the justification for doing nothing is the exaggeration of lesser evils.
Go to dv/dts link. It's much more balanced in its reporting.
As with the time limits for murder, and certain other crimes, I believe there should be no time limit restrictions on proving you are innocent.
To have a law that basically says, we, the people, don't care if you are innocent if you did not get your paperwork in on time...well...that doesn't really go along with what I believe our country and legal system should be about.
To have a law that basically says, we, the people, don't care if you are innocent if you did not get your paperwork in on time...well...that doesn't really go along with what I believe our country and legal system should be about.
So are you opposed to statutes of limitations or repose in all cases? We do this for all kinds of things. For example, if you're a day late on a breach of contract action, you're SOL. Are you good with a "we don't care if you totally ripped someone off, because the guy suing you was a bit late" approach?
Just the other side of the same coin, and curious if your view extends.
Cheers, John
__________________
FFR1004105RD - world's first twin-turbo BMW V12-powered FFR Roadster
2011 Dodge 2500 Cummins 6.7L - biodiesel-fueled daily driver JHETTO: 2001 VW Jetta TDI, intended as G3F donor, FOR SALE
So are you opposed to statutes of limitations or repose in all cases? We do this for all kinds of things. For example, if you're a day late on a breach of contract action, you're SOL. Are you good with a "we don't care if you totally ripped someone off, because the guy suing you was a bit late" approach?
Just the other side of the same coin, and curious if your view extends.
Cheers, John
IMHO there is a rather big difference between civil and criminal actions. I.E. those that will take away a persons freedom and rights.
IMHO there is a rather big difference between civil and criminal actions. I.E. those that will take away a persons freedom and rights.
I agree with you in theory BUT...
There has to be time limits in criminal cases too. It is impossible for the State or Govt. to remain prepared for court the entire period of someone's incarceration. People die, people retire, people move away to unknown locations, people forget details, and files and evidence are eventually destroyed. Additionally I don't think we taxpayers would be prepared or willing to pay for the courts and personnel that would be required to handle the unlimited filings that people would continue to file while in prison if we didn't have time limits with criminal cases.
There has to be time limits in criminal cases too. It is impossible for the State or Govt. to remain prepared for court the entire period of someone's incarceration. People die, people retire, people move away to unknown locations, people forget details, and files and evidence are eventually destroyed. Additionally I don't think we taxpayers would be prepared or willing to pay for the courts and personnel that would be required to handle the unlimited filings that people would continue to file while in prison if we didn't have time limits with criminal cases.
I understand that, but I believe in cases, like the court has apparently recognized here, when a individual is blatantly not guilty based upon the previous court proceeding, that there must be some wiggle room. There must be some "common sense", "big picture" thinking done and like conclusions.
To have it any other way is not "fair" to the innocent. As you are aware, our system has it's flaws and many times the guilty are let free. I have said many times that I, personally, would be alright going to prison for the rest of my life if only it meant that I was guaranteed that 100% of the guilty people would also lose their freedom, but that is not something that I or anyone else should pose upon another individual. It isn't just. And, of course, it isn't reality because we can never be 100% sure that every person convicted is truly guilty of the accused crimes. Therefore, we, as a society, MUST err on the side of caution to not convict the innocent, and we MUST realize the systems errors when they are brought to our attention.
It simply can not be any other way and still, in my mind, be considered a fair system.
I wonder what this guys burglary victims (2 that are known) think about the case? Shouldn't we care about victims? He served time for two priors and was found guilty of a third...and didn't file in time to have that appealed.
At what point do we stop feeling sorry for criminals?
To be fair, there's nothing in the articles to give a lot of background. When were his first two convictions? How long between #2 and the knife incident? Was he a hard working contributor to society or a thug when he was 'caught' with a knife at the bar fight?
Would be nice to have that information...but the liberal media doesn't want you to hear those facts.
Are you forgetting the symbol of justice in this country? It is lady justice holding a scale...SHE IS BLINDFOLDED.
That means that there is nothing relavent to the matter other than the facts of the matter. Prior convictions should NOT BE CONSIDERED during a proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. Yes they most certainly should be considered during sentencing, but as to the matter of whether a person is guilty of a particular crime, those facts have no, or should have no, relevance.
I'm all for three strikes as a deterent, but that does not mean I am for railroading somebody that has screwed up a couple times and just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is being prejudiced and THAT is injustice.
To have a law that basically says, we, the people, don't care if you are innocent if you did not get your paperwork in on time...well...that doesn't really go along with what I believe our country and legal system should be about.
I'm all for having no time limit for appeals based on new evidence, which is not the case here. What you're proposing would be anarchy.
Mike
__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Frequently the justification for doing nothing is the exaggeration of lesser evils.
That is exactly what is being appealed--whether the appeals court had jurisdiction. to begin with.
Mike
__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Frequently the justification for doing nothing is the exaggeration of lesser evils.
I'm all for having no time limit for appeals based on new evidence, which is not the case here. What you're proposing would be anarchy.
Mike
The over turning of the original verdict was based on new witness testimony which I think would be considered as new evidence. And I don't think the appeals judge said there should be a new trial, he said the guy was innocent (although this may have just set the clock back to "innocent until proven guilty").
The strange thing here is that they seem to be trying to close the proverbial "barn doors" after the cows are out. If the law is that the appeal can't be heard after a specific time then how did it manage to get appealled. And once it has been appealled, and the verdict set aside, how do you go back to "it's too late"? Does he really have to pay for his lawyers incompetance?
Welcome to FFCars! The
representations expressed are the representations and opinions of
the FFCars.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions and viewpoints of the site owners, moderators, Factory Five
Racing, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. This website
has been planned and developed by FFCars.com and its forum members
and should not be construed as being endorsed by Factory Five
Racing, Inc. or Ford Motor Company for any
purpose. "FFR", "Factory Five", "Factory Five Racing", and the
Factory Five Racing logo are registered trademarks of Factory Five
Racing, Inc. FFCars.com forum members agree not to
post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is
owned by you. Although we do not and cannot review the messages
posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these
messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason
whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your
messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with
respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).
Thank you for visiting the FFCars.com Forum dedicated to Factory
Five.
Linear Mode
