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

[cjericho]

Guy kills his ex-wife, is convicted, but it's thrown out on appeal.


Man admits to killing ex-wife even after court tosses his conviction

 

[LongTimeListener]

I don't see where it says the jurors ever misinterpreted this.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Due process, due schmrocess, amirite?

By the way, just to be clear, he confessed eight years ago. It was thrown out on appeal four years ago. He just pled guilty during the recent retrial. So it's not like he's a free man.

 

[cjericho]

The judge didn't give information on the relevance of his mental condition, so he won the appeal. So now they get the information and he will most likely die in jail. That was what would have happened after the original trial.

 

[MisterCreosote]

The judge didn't give information on the relevance of his mental condition, so he won the appeal. So now they get the information and he will most likely die in jail. That was what would have happened after the original trial.

Right. So your problem is with his right to due process.

 

[bigpern23]

I'm confused. The conviction was thrown out upon appeal and then he was tried again?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Due process, due schmrocess, amirite?

It sounds like he got his due process rights and THEN some. He was found guilty in a jury trial. ... and then an appeals court threw out the conviction from the trial on something procedural. When it was sent back for a new trial, he pled guilty the second time around (probably to save himself some prison time for sparing them another trial -- first time around he got 50 years after going to trial, second time around he got off with "only" 30 years for pleading).

This guy was not deprived of his due process rights. He got more chance at getting himself off than most people do.

 

[JakeandElwood]

I'm confused. The conviction was thrown out upon appeal and then he was tried again?

You can have a conviction thrown out with an instruction for a retrial as opposed to being declared innocent.

 

[cjericho]

Right. So your problem is with his right to due process.

Thought the intent of an appeal was to correct a mistake and help someone who is innocent not get sent to prison. Guess it's no problem if someone who is guilty gets to walk away.

 

[MisterCreosote]

It sounds like he got his due process rights and THEN some. He was found guilty in a jury trial. ... and then an appeals court threw out the conviction from the trial on something procedural.

If the proper procedures weren't followed, he didn't get "due process."

 

[MisterCreosote]

Thought the intent of an appeal was to correct a mistake and help someone who is innocent not get sent to prison. Guess it's no problem if someone who is guilty gets to walk away.

They appealed because his mental condition was a cornerstone of their argument, and information about that mental condition was withheld from the jury.

This isn't hard.

 

[bigpern23]

OK, gotcha. That wasn't clear from the story.

 

[bigpern23]

Thought the intent of an appeal was to correct a mistake and help someone who is innocent not get sent to prison. Guess it's no problem if someone who is guilty gets to walk away.

The cornerstone of our justice system is that it's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed. That's why one must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[The Big Ragu]

If the proper procedures weren't followed, he didn't get "due process."

He went to trial (i.e. -- he was allowed a chance to defend himself against the charges) for murder. He was convicted (i.e. -- by a jury of his peers). He appealed (i.e. -- he was allowed an appeal based on legal grounds) his conviction that resulted from a trial. The appeals court upheld his appeal (i.e. -- a court listened to his argument) and remanded back for a new trial (i.e. -- so he could once again defend himself). He pled rather than going to trial again (i.e. -- availing himself of another chance to defend himself).

That is due process at work right there. This guy was NOT cheated on the fairness scale.

 

[MisterCreosote]

He went to trial (i.e. -- he was allowed a chance to defend himself against the charges) for murder. He was convicted (i.e. -- by a jury of his peers). He appealed (i.e. -- he was allowed an appeal based on legal grounds) his conviction that resulted from a trial. The appeals court upheld his appeal (i.e. -- a court listened to his argument) and remanded back for a new trial (i.e. -- so he could once again defend himself). He pled rather than going to trial again (i.e. -- availing himself of another chance to defend himself).

That is due process at work right there. This guy was NOT cheated on the fairness scale.

Right, but the OP is arguing he shouldn't have gotten an appeal.

 

[cjericho]

Right, but the OP is arguing he shouldn't have gotten an appeal.

Didn't argue that. He had a right to it, but didn't mean he had to use it. He had a public defender, who is likely burdened with a lot of cases. By spending time on this guy, it likely took away time from an innocent person who was wrongly arrested.

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

He must've told the judge 15 minutes will save him money on car insurance. Boom, case dismissed.

 

[JohnHammond]

Thought the intent of an appeal was to correct a mistake and help someone who is innocent not get sent to prison. Guess it's no problem if someone who is guilty gets to walk away.

Due process is for those who deserve it. #amirite #sjethics

 

[Dick Whitman]

Thought the intent of an appeal was to correct a mistake and help someone who is innocent not get sent to prison. Guess it's no problem if someone who is guilty gets to walk away.

He didn't walk away.

I am baffled as to what the problem is here.

 

[JohnHammond]

For some reason, cjericho thinks insanity is not relevant. Professor Charles W. Kingsfield Jr. disapproves.