Posted on 09/16/2002 1:46:27 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
Death
No, I don't think so. California is a liberal state and they have been criticized that there is such a backlog on death row. The state vows to pick up the pace but I personally think that California will bend to the pressure of the anti-death penalty crowd and abolish it within the next few years.
BTW, that's why I was for life in prison in the case of Westerfield. I didn't want to have to pay for his automatic appeals with my tax funds. And, as a member of death row, he has better accomodations if what I hear is right.
It'll probably get tacked up over at LP for the anti-FReep snivellers to weep over.
"Hi, David
I don't understand
juries. They're so
statist. But it seems
like that's the way it is
in California since they sent
Steve Kubby and his terrible cancer
to Canada. 'Cause he can get medicine
there. For 25 more years. LOL!.
But they want to kill you, David.
That makes me sad.
What did they say you did, anyway?
Oh, well. OJ was innocent too.
But he had a good jury"
Love,
Me"
I pray it will never happen again, Kim.
I am afraid the one that did it is still out there.
I do not think Westerfield is guilty.
I agree.
I don't recall that you and I have ever been seriously at odds with one another, at least not to the point where it got personal. That said, you might want to consider the possibility that the prosecutor in the DWI case may have included the word "not" after the word "could" and you simply missed it. On the other hand, the prosecutor probably makes the comment that not testifying "could not" be taken into consideration that s/he simply mistakenly omitted the word "not".
Whether the prosecutor stated the law correctly, or not, the U.S. Constitution is quite clear that a defendant not testifying in a criminal case cannot be a consideration in reaching a verdict. In a civil case, a refusal to testify is very much a factor to be considered by the jury.
It is my understanding they are now (thanks to this case) thinking of even doing away with Trial by Jury and going by TRIAL by MEDIA.
I'll second that. Not only does an innocent man on trial for his life take the stand, he needs no lawyer to prove his innocence.
Hell's bells, isn't that exactly what we witnessed in this trial? Sure looked that way to me!
(Hi, UCANSEE2!)
I'll second that. Not only does an innocent man on trial for his life take the stand, he needs no lawyer to prove his innocence.
I hope you said this because you are being sarcastic. You can't be serious.
Why in the DW case is not testifying at trial evidence of guilt, but in another trial it would not be evidence of guilt? A person's constitutional right to the benefits of not testifying at his criminal trial is not dependant on the nature of the charges, is it?
Whether DW should have testified is a separate matter. Had he known that he was going to be convicted, in advance, he would certainly have made a different decision about testifying. He took a chance, and may or may not have made the wrong decision. What happens in the appellate courts will determine whether or not it was the correct decision.
(sorry, wasn't supposed to be in italics)
A lot of you felt David may have been molested by his grandfather, so it could be a factor in his killing Danielle. Hmmm What about the Van Dam children being brought up in a unhealthy enviorment? How will there lifestyle effect their future? Will they be swingers and druggies?
You can say David killed Danielle because a jury said he did. That is fine. But those of us who believe he did not. will always question the fairness of the trial.
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.