N.J. justice Rivera-Soto offers 'profound' apology amid ethics inquiry

Newark Star Ledger ^ | 6/2/07 | Kate Coscarelli

[BettyAnnB]

State Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto said yesterday he was "profoundly sorry" and "deeply regretted" that his actions in interceding last year in a dispute between his son and another high school student potentially undermined public trust in the judiciary.......

As part of yesterday's filing, Rivera-Soto said he would waive a hearing on the issue "based on my desire to prevent any further harm to the court's reputation." .....

[BettyAnnB]

Throwing himself on the mercy of the court, Judge Rivera-Soto isn’t going to challenge the findings of the Judicial Conduct Panel. He waived his right to a hearing on the facts. Silver lining for the judge? Maybe if the other Supremes throw him off the bench, he can get his big-money casino job back and afford to send the kid to the toney Philadelphia prep school his older brother attended (see post #72 at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1837403/posts).

To the knee-jerk FReepers who chalked up this sordid example of gross power projection to a liberal plot to bring down a good conservative: looks like you were wrong.

[Calpernia]

ping

[Calpernia]

Previous:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1837403/posts
Conduct panel files complaint against NJ Supreme Court justice

[wideawake]

Which FReepers believed that a McGreevey appointee was a conservative?

[tsomer]

To the knee-jerk FReepers who chalked up this sordid
example of gross power projection to a liberal plot to bring
down a good conservative: looks like you were wrong.

I guess your talking about me.

So, tell me what you think of this:

NEWARK, N.J. - The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday
vacated the murder conviction and death sentence of a Bucks County man,
finding that the trial judge should have removed a juror
who appeared biased and questioned the remaining ones.

The lone dissenter, Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto,
said there was no basis for the majority to presume
that the juror had formed an opinion or tainted other jurors.

Here's the link:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20070606_Murder_conviction_thrown_out_The_N_J__Supreme_Court_vacated_the_1994_death_sentence_of_a_Pa__man_because_of_a_tainted_jury_.html

[Coleus]

He's a conservative, they'll try to get him on anything.

 

Justice (Rivera-Soto) denies wrongdoing in aiding son

[MattinNJ]

Great Judge-To be honest, I find most Judges in NJ to be pretty good and very fair. Sure, there are quite a few bad apples, but for the most parts you win the ones you should win and lose the ones you should lose.

[BettyAnnB]

I don’t know. What am I supposed to think? What do you think?

From what I read in the article, it sounds like the Supreme Court did the right thing in overturning the conviction. Do you know something I don’t?

[tsomer]

From what I read in the article, it sounds like the Supreme Court did the right thing in overturning the conviction.Do you know something I don’t?

Details: 1992, A guy's found dead, with a bullet hole in his head at a gas station where he worked nights.

Loftin, the perp, is picked up four days later trying to use the victim's credit card. They find a gun under the dash of the perp's car, and ballistics match the bullet to the gun.

The perp gets his days in court, 11 of them, and is condemned. He also gets convicted of another murder, a 69 year old woman. For that he gets life.

During the perps 11 day trial, allegations against 1 juror are phoned in. They allege that this juror expressed 'bad thoughts'--that he'd buy the rope to hang Loftin. The judge proceeds nevertheless, reasoning that 11 airheads are close enough to the ideal jury.

But, 12 years later the Jersey Supremes decided to tie up the courts with yet another hearing for this miscreant. Who knows? Maybe he'll get the chance to kill some more of us.

Anyway, there was one dissenter: Justice Rivera-Soto.

[BettyAnnB]

I read the article too. This guy sounds like a very bad guy indeed. It also sounds like he might not have received a fair trial, at least that’s what six of seven NJ Supremes believe. And aren’t at least 3 of the NJ Supremes GOPers (I thought I read somewhere of an “unwritten rule” that the court be comprised of no fewer than three members of either party, which is why Dem McGreevy appointed GOPer Rivera-Soto in the first place)? So it’s not just those pesky liberals thinking a fair trial should precede slipping a noose around a human being’s neck. I don’t know why anyone would have problem with that. Am I the only one to prefer living in a place where state-sponsored murder is taken seriously?

BTW, What does your reference to this decision have to do with the topic of this thread, Rivera-Soto’s admission that he did what he was accused of doing?