Justice Served? Man Serving Life Sentence For Stealing TV

WRAL.com ^ | November 25, 2003 | Gerald Owens

[liberallarry]

Presumably the Parole Board had done all of these things. Why do you assume that their conclusion is wrong?

Because, based on their quoted statements, I don't trust them.
Because I cannot see justice in their actions.
Because they've provided no explanation of why their conclusions differ from the prosecution.

And because I want to know why the Prosecution acted as it did.

[gridlock]

Maybe it is just a different point of view, but I don't see anything in their statements that indicate that they should not be taken at face value. They have a certain job to do, and they are doing it. They are to determine rehabilitation and fitness for release. They are not to determine justice, or the appropriateness of the sentence. They are to look at the record and decide whether or not to parole.

As for why their conclusion differs from the Prosecution, there is not necessarily any contradiction. The Prosecution presents a case in order to get a conviction, which they did. In doing so, they will make all sorts of strategic decisions about what to present and what not to present. The Parole Board is doing an entirely different job.

A healthy dose of skepticism of public employees is a healthy thing, of course. But there is nothing here that makes me think the Parole Board is not doing the job correctly. Thirty years in jail for a multi-repeat violent offender who broke into a house and beat up a little old lady is not outside the range of acceptable results, IMHO.

[liberallarry]

I think at this point we must agree to disagree.

If Mr. Rosen pursues the case perhaps more detail will emerge. If not, then at least we've come to understand each other's point of view.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

If so, tell me why you prefer to believe the trooper rather than the D.A.?

Because the trooper was there? And the DA wasn't?

And why the State chose to reject the trooper's report?

They didn't necessarily reject his report. You are leaping to an enormous conclusion there. And with no basis in a public record.

You fail to understand some basic facts one which was to charge him with assault Lessie Johnson would have had to testify. If she did not want to do so then the best that they could do at that time would be to charge him with burglary.

Now days a simple DNA test likely could have proved without her showing up in court that he was there and assaulted her. But in 1970 there was no such thing. And I also am going on past history which states he already had committed assault in the past.

[the invisib1e hand]

a circumstance one should not ignore.

perhaps not in Germany, or Scandanavia, or the Amazon Rain Forest (though, even there, it's doubtful it would be given much weight).

But in any civillized nation (assuming one can still find one) that circumstance is irrelevant to the crime of murder.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Must've been the judge's TV.

[liberallarry]

You fail to understand some basic facts one which was to charge him with assault Lessie Johnson would have had to testify. If she did not want to do so then the best that they could do at that time would be to charge him with burglary.

That's a very good point.

If it happened as you say wouldn't it be part of the public record? Wouldn't the parole board have that info? And if they did wouldn't they at some point make it public?

[liberallarry]

You fail to understand some basic facts one which was to charge him with assault Lessie Johnson would have had to testify. If she did not want to do so then the best that they could do at that time would be to charge him with burglary

Forgive me for not reviewing post #38 again but - if I remember correctly - the Supreme Court in its 1971 review - found that the State, in effect, stipulated that the home was unoccupied at the time of the crime. Was it necessary to concede so much if Ms. Johnson refused to testify...and if so why?

[Michael81Dus]

I trying to committ suicide illegal in the US?

[liberallarry]

You fail to understand some basic facts one which was to charge him with assault Lessie Johnson would have had to testify. If she did not want to do so then the best that they could do at that time would be to charge him with burglary.

I had another thought on this scenario.

Johnson's family would certainly know the truth about this. They were interviewed by reporters. Nothing surfaced about this. How can that be?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

If it happened as you say wouldn't it be part of the public record? Wouldn't the parole board have that info? And if they did wouldn't they at some point make it public?

They do. It is part of the police report which is public record just not part of the court record.

There are many things that are in police reports that never make it into the court record for some reason or another. Mostly having to do with either reluctant witnesses or tainted evidence (a confession before the suspects rights were read would be considered tainted) or not being able to prove with 100% certainty that it happened just so.

In a case where a conviction is in the least doubtful, (as in this case a first degree burglary charge would be lacking Mrs. Johnson's testimony) the Prosecutor would go with the lesser charge that they were certain to get a conviction on.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Was it necessary to concede so much if Ms. Johnson refused to testify...and if so why?

Yes. Because of the way our legal system works. There was only one witness, one accuser if you will. The police report is pure hearsay without her testimony, given in court, at the trial, with the accused present.

Hearsay or third party reporting is not allowed in court.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Johnson's family would certainly know the truth about this. They were interviewed by reporters. Nothing surfaced about this. How can that be?

They were interviewed. Here is what they said:

"I think he deserved it, and I think he should stay in there," said Monroe Johnson. Johnson has another theory as to why Allen is still bars. He and his family said Allen beat Johnson's mother before taking her television."That was why the judge gave him such a stiff sentence, was because of all the circumstances in the case, just not the TV," he said.

Apparently they said quite a bit about it.

[liberallarry]

I know they said that(it was in the article linked in post #38). But did they say she refused to testify? Did they say why he wasn't charged with assault?

There's also a big question in my mind about their theory about why the judge imposed such a harsh sentence. If the prosecution didn't introduce evidence of assault into evidence - and in fact stipulated that no one was home at the time of the assault - how could the judge consider it when imposing a sentence?

[liberallarry]

Correction.

"at the time of the assault" should read "at the time of the burglary".

[dpa5923]

Damnit, don't interupt my bleeding heart with facts or logic.

[Rome2000]

At least he won't be stealing anymore TV's.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

If the prosecution didn't introduce evidence of assault into evidence - and in fact stipulated that no one was home at the time of the assault

Hold it there. You are saying that they said that no one was at home. That is quite different from what the record states. You have to be able to understand the legal jargon though.

According to court records, prosecutors reduced the charge to second-degree burglary because they couldn't prove that Johnson had been home during the theft. "It was, in effect, a stipulation by the state that the house was not actually occupied at the time," states a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling rejecting Allen's appeal.

The "in effect" is very important. In reality, the prosecution said no such thing. They only said they couldn't prove in court that the house was occupied. This is not the same thing as what you said. Not being able to prove something is, is quite different from saying that something is not. Although in the trial portion of a case it can have the same effect. If you can't prove it, you can't bring it up.

The sentencing rules though are a bit less ridged. The judge may consider things that were not brought up in the trial portion. Sentences are generally made harsher or more merciful depending on what mitigating factors are brought up at that point.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Damnit, don't interupt my bleeding heart with facts or logic.

I would never interfere with your right to bleed. :)

(Just don't do it on the new carpet okay?)

[liberallarry]

Thank you for the correction. I do not understand legal jargon.
I am still left wondering why the state couldn't prove anyone was at home. I am still left wondering whether or not Ms. Johnson testified...and - if she didn't - why it was so difficult to prove she was at home. Where else would she have been - unless she was a very unusual 87 yr. old.