Posted on 04/12/2005 8:05:08 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
US murderer could go free because of court badges
09.04.05 1.00pm
SAN FRANCISCO - A convicted murderer could be released from prison after 11 years because of a ruling that found it was wrong for family members to wear badges with an image of the victim during his trial.
The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling following a review of the case of Mathew Musladin, who was convicted to life without parole in the 1994 murder of his estranged wife’s fiance.
During the trial, three family members wore buttons bearing the image of victim Tom Studer within clear sight of the jury. The court ruled that such images had a prejudicial impact.
"Here, the direct link between the buttons, the spectators wearing the buttons, the defendant, and the crime that the defendant allegedly committed was clear and unmistakable, " Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the three-judge panel.
"A reasonable jurist would be compelled to conclude that the buttons worn by Studer’s family members conveyed the message that the defendant was guilty. "
The decision means that county officials must decide whether to retry the case or allow Musladin go free, his lawyer David Fermino said.
The California attorney general’s office could also request a 9th Circuit reconsideration of the case by an 11-judge panel; a spokesman said officials were considering their response.
One of the three judges in the Friday decision dissented.
"The buttons were three to four inches in diameter and, except for the deceased victim’s picture, there was nothing else on them. The buttons conveyed no ‘message,"‘ Judge David Thompson wrote.
"The addition of buttons worn by them showing only the victim’s photograph would add little if anything to any possible risk of impermissibly prejudicing the jury. "
- REUTERS
I cannot tell you how angry this makes me.
No prob. 9th circus gets overruled so often, it's not news.
Fine. Release him into Judge Reinhardt's neighborhood.
From the Abrams show transcript:
“My Take”—this is absurd. Next thing you know, courts are going to find that it‘s too prejudicial to have the victim‘s family members sitting in court at all on the prosecution side. The buttons didn‘t say convict. Why is it such a miscarriage of justice to allow victim‘s family members an opportunity to wear a small button to remember their loved one?
JIM STUDER, HIS BROTHER‘S KILLER COULD GO FREE: That‘s correct.
ABRAMS: Wow. What was your reaction?
STUDER: There were a lot of tears. They called my sister. And she was totally shocked. And then she called me and told me what was happening and it took her a little bit to be able—to even be able to talk to me to tell me what had happened.
ABRAMS: And so you and your family did wear these buttons, correct, to court?
STUDER: We wore them for, I think, the first two days of the trial. And we had spoken with the judge and he had given us permission to wear them, said that he didn‘t feel it was an issue. And after the second day, Mr. Mendoza I think had talked with us and we kind of decided not to wear them after that.
- - -
ABRAMS: Yes. And so you decided not wear them after the first couple of days, but they didn‘t say anything on them, right? Just a picture of your brother, much like the picture we just saw.
STUDER: It was exactly the picture that you saw and that was all there was.
- - -
ABRAMS: OK. And so you‘re sitting there in the front row and you‘re obviously you know supporting the prosecution in this case. Tell me why you were so convinced that Musladin was guilty here.
STUDER: Well, from all the information that we received during the trial, and all the events that we had heard about, it just—it was very apparent that he had at least been the person who had murdered my brother.
- - -
ABRAMS: You know if you can stick around for a minute, because when we come back, I want to talk with the public defender who got Musladin‘s murder conviction overturned and to the prosecutor. I want to know why they didn‘t tell you, first of all as well, so I‘ve got questions for both sides.
- - -
ABRAMS: We‘re back with what I view as a disturbing story, a 10-year-old murder conviction overturned by a federal appeals court. Matthew Musladin found guilty of first-degree murder and attempted murder, but now in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Musladin deserves a new trial because the victim‘s family members wore buttons with a picture of their loved one to court. The court said that could have influenced the jury‘s decision.
Said it before I‘ll say it again, I think this is insanity. Joining me now is Matthew Musladin‘s attorney who won the appeal, David Fermino, and Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Ray Mendoza who prosecuted the case.
All right, Mr. Fermino, let me read to you from the dissenting opinion, the one judge who was in the minority here, which reflects my opinion and I want to get your response it.
- - -
ID FERMINO, MATTHEW MUSLADIN‘S ATTORNEY: Well Dan, I think that‘s just the point. In this is case this was a case with a self-defense theory. And the buttons convey a message. They convey a message and the message is this was a peaceful person. It didn‘t show Tom Studer, with all respect to his family, as the person he was at the time of this offense.
using methamphetamine. This was a group of people who were using a great deal of drugs. He was on methamphetamine of this—on the day of this crime. And the picture carried a different message. It sent a message to the jury...
This story makes me so angry, where to begin. I am sure my fellow Freepers will have a thought or two on this as well.
I wonder how many other cases will be affected by this stupid, shallow ruling.
People loving and supporting the victim doesn't mean the accused did it.
It figures!
From Abrams show:
Let me read—this is number two here. Let me read—again, this is from the majority of opinion that, again, I find this opinion to be stunning.
The primary issue at Musladin‘s trial was whether it was the defendant or the deceased who was the aggressor. The buttons essentially argue that Studer was the innocent party and the defendant was necessarily guilty, that the defendant, not Studer, was the initiator of the attack and thus, the perpetrator of a criminal act.
Love your comment, thanks. I agree lets have the judge live next door to this criminal.
From the Abrams show:
MENDOZA: Well I agree with the dissent in this case. I think jurors
figure out pretty quickly who is on whose side and I personally don‘t think
· I disagree with the court‘s assessment of the button situation in court whether it relates to self-defense or some other theory. The fact is there‘s still a victim in the case and I think the victim as well as the state has a right to a fair trial.
ABRAMS: Very quickly Mr. Fermino, so what is the difference? Why does it matter what the theory of the case was?
FERMINO: Well Dan, it‘s like jury nullification. I would imagine that Mr. Mendoza wouldn‘t want in a drug case to have family members come in wearing buttons saying family members against mandatory minimum sentences...
ABRAMS: No, but this didn‘t say anything. Look, if they want to have pictures of their family member on them, you know what, it‘s not going to lead to a change in the outcome.
FERMINO: Well, but again, it goes to—there‘s a direct relationship between the way he was portrayed and the theory of self-defense, and I think that the majority opinion gets that, and I think it‘s right.
Your thoughts?
I suppose it is expected but to think of how many years it has been that they are now ruling on this, it is frankly a crime to the victim (his family) and the convicted.
I was telling beloved yesterday that Scott Peterson will wait 12 years for a public defender who will represent him as he goes through the appeals process.
What the hell is that about. Twelve years. Again on fair to the victim's family, and the condemned. While I know the trial was swift, so should be the appeals. Folks die, memories fade. I am really at a loss of words when it comes to our justice system.
Thanks for your comment, greatly appreciated.
They're saying that the jurors were biased into thinking that the dead guy who MAYBE wasn't so dead really WAS dead. The jurors were biased into thinking they actually WERE jurors for a murder trial. The jurors were biased into thinking that the not-so-dead guy may have ACTUALLY BEEN a once-live human being, robbed of his life, and his grieving loved ones were unfairly, unlawfully, and unConstitutionally missing him and wanting to see justice done.
Am I NOT making sense? Do I sound insane???
GOOD!!!!!!!
I'm running for Judgeship. VOTE FOR ME!
Tell me where to send my donation and where to sign up to volunteer on your campaign.
Interesting, isn't it. Convince a family member or two to wear a picture button and you walk. Get only two out of five "experts" to say you aren't a vegetable and you die.
Justice System? I think not.
Legal System? I think so.
All the more reason to break up the ultra-leftist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. These judges hate America and everything good and decent.
Freepers unite to end judicial terrorism.
I have to tell you it is very disturbing. The idea that a judge was asked to make a ruling on this during the trial and did just that feeling confident that it would not be an issue on appeal. HA what a joke.
Pictures. It isn't like they wore a badge that had the accused in what I will call a gun site ... I mean it was the victim for gosh sakes.
Now the victim's have to relive this horrific event so many years later.
This really has the feel of what I will call the twinkie defense. Lawyer's finding a way to get their client off. OFF being the word of the day.
What does that mean getting his client OFF -- he did it but the badges say he what .. where did the badges go to his intent, acts I am bewildered in the heartland.
BS headlines ... it's not "Technicality May Let Prisoner Walk"
it's
"9th Circuit Justice Reinhardt frees murderer"
let's put the blame where it really belongs... a bogus Judge who gave a bogus ruling.
I think the whole 9th circuit should be thrown out because people might think that they are really judges.
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.