1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

OK Jurors, he said he did it. Everyone understand?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by cjericho, Jan 23, 2017.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I still don't understand your gripe. He wasn't "clearly guilty." The jury was not properly instructed on the evaluation of his mental state at the time of the crime, which was a potential mitigating or even exonerating circumstance.
     
  2. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    In the first case, he was clearly guilty. According to the article on the appeal, the jury was not properly instructed on the evaluation of his mental state at the time of the crime, which was a potential mitigating or even exonerating circumstance.
     
  3. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    ICYMI, those instructions are vital. There is "guilty" according to established law and there is "guilty" according to cjericho law. I'm sorry you don't understand criminal law, but that's not the law's fault.
     
  4. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    He was guilty according to the established law. He had a right to an appeal. On the appeal, the judge didn't clearly explain instructions.
     
  5. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Here is a simpler version: A person who killed someone else is standing trial. No one is disputing the defendant killed someone. Defense attorney makes case that defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. Judge makes a mistake in his instruction to jury regarding the insanity defense. Jury finds defendant guilt. Defense appeals based on judge's instructions. Appeals court believes the judge's error is serious enough to overturn convtction, but prosecution can re-try the case. Defendant pleaded guilty to avoid maximum sentence if case went to trial. He could have tried his luck with another insanity defense, but probably decided that tactic wouldn't work.

    It does not matter if the defendant committed the crime or it in this case. That fact is not being questioned. It's not tough to follow along.
     
  6. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Did he plead not guilty due to insanity orginally?
     
  7. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Obviously, he didn't enter a guilty plea.

    Skimmed through the appeal opinion and the defense wanted the defendent's confession to police to be ruled inadmissible. Appeals court denied that claim, so that may have factored into the decision to enter a guilty plea this week.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I guess you think it's clever to repeat my words back at me. I still have no idea what your complaint is with this outcome. No one does.
     
  9. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    This thread baffles me as well. This case looks like the system functioning exactly as it is supposed to.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Who gets to determine who is "clearly guilty"? I know a few people who would love to dispense with due process for the people who are "clearly guilty." (of course with them deciding who is "clearly guilty.")

    It's kind of the point of bending over backward to try to ensure fairness for everyone. There is a presumption of innocence in this country (at least there is supposed to be), and we want a system that makes every effort to allow someone to create the reasonable doubt for a jury that might keep them free. Part of the rules for ensuring fairness is an appeals process. It doesn't allow you to petition to change a verdict based on the facts presented at the trial (what you think made him "clearly guilty"). But you are allowed to appeal on legal grounds -- meaning, a claim that there was a problem with the law related to the case -- usually something procedural that could have caused an error in the judgment (i.e. -- gotten you unfairly convicted).

    If you ever find yourself being railroaded or prosecuted by an overzealous DA or being screwed by an inept judge or in the hands of a corrupt jury, you will be thankful for that appeals process. It can be the only thing protecting you if the prosecution withholds discovery or a judge improperly excludes things that are to your benefit of if there is juror misconduct or a sentencing error or any number of things that can create an unjust outcome (that takes away your freedom).

    "Clearly guilty" is for public opinion. It's not how our criminal justice system works -- nor should it be.
     
  11. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    It's not that baffling. There's one dumb poster who doesn't understand how the system works and is quite insistent on displaying that to the rest of us. Everyone else here seems to get it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
    JC and LongTimeListener like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page