Posted on 02/01/2004 6:36:45 PM PST by Russian Sage
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:55:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
TILLERY, N.C. -- Does the punishment fit the crime? That is the underlying question in our legal system. The answer to that question has changed over time.
In 1970, a day laborer named Junior Allen was given a life sentence for a crime he would likely get probation for today.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
"at the time of the assault" should read "at the time of the burglary".
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.
I would never interfere with your right to bleed. :)
(Just don't do it on the new carpet okay?)
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.