Posted on 10/19/2014 9:30:28 AM PDT by marktwain
| Harvill Richardson |
¶ 2. Because Rudy Quilon was homeless following his release from prison, Harvill Richardson permitted Quilon to move into his home while he got back on his feet. Over the next five months, Quilon became increasingly unwelcome as he bragged about having been convicted for murder and armed robbery, his previous experiences as a gang member, and killing a “snitch” in prison. He warned that he could harm those who upset him.
Since no good deed goes unpunished, Quilon begins a reign of terror that ends only when Richardson shoots Quilon after ordering Quilon to leave. Richardson claims self defense but, as is all too common in the courts of our state, his ability to present that defense is sorely limited by the trial court. Issues include: 1) court’s refusal to allow Richardson to elicit evidence of Quilon’s prior conviction and his conduct; 2) judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct including the prosecution’s making false statements during closing argument; 3) refusal to allow Richardon to elicit evidence of his PTSD. Richardson’s brief. State’s brief.The Supreme Court found that the Harrison County judge had erred. The prosecutors appealed that ruling, again to the Supreme Court, on different grounds. Four months later, the Court rejected that appeal as well.
Richardson was sentenced to life in prison in 2011 for the fatal shooting of Rudy Quillon, 55, Oct. 20, 2009, at Richardson's home on Old Highway 67.It reminds me of the Harold Fish case in Arizona. Harold Fish was convicted by a prosecutor with an agenda. The legislature passed legislation designed to give Fish a new trial, at least three times. Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed two bills, and the Supreme Court ruled that a bill did not apply, because Harold was convicted before the bill was passed. It was only after Janet Napolitano was recruited by the Obama Administration, that the legislature was able to pass a bill and have it signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Fish was released after three years in prison.
MS Ping
Bet that made Bernice happy. /obscure
I’m curious to see a picture of Rudy. He sounds like a slime bag.
I see what you did there... Fish.
Good grief, that was 1974? Feelin’ old ... old as Fish!
“This situation culminated when Quilon, who had begun watching pornography on Richardson’s computer, stated that he wanted to have sex with Richardson’s wife. Richardson ordered Quilon to gather his belongings and leave. Quilon refused and walked out to a shed behind the home where Richard kept axes and other tools that could be used as weapons. Richardson then armed himself with a pistol. As Quilon returned from the shed, he approached Richardson in a threatening manner, with one arm concealed behind his back. Richardson attempted to stop him by warning him not to come any closer, and by firing a warning shot into the ground, but Quilon kept coming toward him, so Richardson shot Quilon in the stomach.
¶ 5. Richardson called 911 and informed the dispatcher that he had shot a man named Rudy Quilon in his back yard. Richardson stated that Quilon had come at him in a threatening manner and “kept coming towards me,” and that “I told him don’t come towards me any more.” He told the dispatcher that he had fired one warning shot at the ground, which Quilon ignored, and that Quilon had said “don’t do that, I’ll take care of you.” Expert testimony established that Richardson shot Quilon at close range, “somewhere in the range of 30 inches from the end of the barrel to the man’s skin where the bullet went in.”
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1671261.html#sthash.Sb0hCelx.dpuf
Also,
“CONCLUSION
¶ 24. The State incorrectly argued that Quilon’s violent criminal history was precluded by Rule 609—a rule that applies only to impeachment of witnesses. The trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to allow Richardson to defend himself with evidence that tended to show his state of mind at the time of the killing. This evidence was crucial to Richardson’s claim of self defense. We therefore must reverse Richardson’s conviction and remand for a new trial.”
Though they intended to help the man, the undeniable end result is that they ended up *killing* him and ruined their life savings through legal fees at the same time.
Well done, nitwits. Some charlatan no doubt convinced them that they get a slightly comfier Lay-Z-Boy® recliner in heaven than everyone else for doing 'good deeds' on Earth.
I hope they've learned a valuable lesson (at 71 years old, yet) and aren't becoming involved in some wild cougar outreach program they've dreamed up.
What if he wanted to help the man because he thought it was the right thing to do?
The only nitwit here is the prosecutor.
I'd wonder what he thinks now.
he was very lucky...a rule of thumb if someone is physically charging you is 20 feet...the attacker got within 30 inches....WAY too close...should have been dead when he hit the 30 inch mark.
Who, in their right mind, would offer a prisoner they did not know to live in their house?
I helped a released prisoner once, but I knew the kid and he did time for driving recklessly and ended up killing a young woman in an accident. He was into fixing up fast cars. Bad hobby for a teen. He really needed help becoming a regular human again. He was not violent at all; but dysfunctional after prison. He cried for three weeks when he got out. Every time he saw me he cried like a four year old child. I helped him get a job and he recovered. But like I said, I knew the kid.
excellent reference of BM...
I wonder what you think now, since you’ve avoided my question.
Not trying to intimidate you, only asking for a straight answer. Let’s have it buddy.
Why would he think that bringing home stray homeless felon gang member murderers is the right thing to do?
Look what happened. Just look. What can anyone say that makes what he did 'the right idea'?
Imagine being his neighbor: One day there's some creepy freak living with the kindly old Richardsons and then the next day the cops are there covering a homicide case. "Hey, did you see that they took old man Richardson away in cuffs? He killed that scuzzy guy we see poking around the neighborhood, and get THIS: He was living with them for some god-forsaken reason. They just picked him up off the street. Wow, crazy world huh?"
Yeah. If Richardson thought it was the right thing to do, he's got a bone in his brain. Good thing there's no little girl missing from the Richardson neighborhood with the suspect being that trashy homeless convict that was shacking up with the Richardsons, don't you agree?
Now you make your case. I yield back the balance of my time.
Truth is, I’m not really angry at you. It’s the prosecutors that boil my blood.
If all Americans had the heart to lend a hand to prisoners and convicts, our country would be improved beyond measure. But if all Americans were motivated the way these corrupt prosecutors are? You get the point.
All I ask is that we focus criticism where it belongs.
To answer your first question, “What if he thought it was the right thing to do?”, the point is that he did think it was the right thing to do.
His self-defense claim is a separate issue; he was found guilty and his conviction was overturned.
I’m saying he’s a nitwit for recklessly putting himself in danger. You’re saying the prosecutor and jury are nitwits for prosecuting and convicting him. We can both be right here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.