Posted on 06/16/2008 3:38:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A federal appeals court has overturned for the third time the death sentence for a man convicted of bludgeoning a young woman to death with an iron bar during a 1981 burglary in San Joaquin County.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that lapses by Fernando Belmontes' defense lawyer kept the jury in the dark about information that could have led to a less severe sentence.
That information included details about Belmontes' violent home life as a child and how that might have contributed to his criminal behavior. The murder occurred in Victor, in San Joaquin County.
The appeals court has commuted Belmontes' death sentence twice before on different grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the rulings both times. The appeals court's most recent reversal came on Friday.
That aspect of the situation is not in question.
Is the 9th Circuit searching for some reason to make him "special" before he gets executed for beating a young woman to death with an iron bar?
Maybe the court should get together and try out an iron bar on each other until one of them is dead. That might help them understand that this puke murdered someone by beating on them with an iron bar.
I'll cut up some pipe for their use if they want to test this.
Odds on a fourth reversal are high, I would think.
/sarc>
Could have, might have, should have...
Are they second-guessing the lawyers strategy or claiming incompetence in the lawyer?
Is the goal to offer defendants the most perfect defense possible? How can one know the most perfect defense until the trial when one hears for sure what the prosecution is going to submit? If the defense goes into the trial with Plan A, and the prosecution offers Plan B, do you overturn the results because the defense didn't adequately prepare for Plan B?
-PJ
I'm also confused about the judges' perspective on childhood trauma. I don't know what details from his youth these Justices think are relevant, but I can't imagine how any event from so many years earlier could make the killer less responsible for the choices he made as an adult.
I'm waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to again reverse the ruling from this most frequently reversed court in the country. The 9th circuit has somehow decided that beating a girl to death with a tire iron is not enough to justify the death penalty, not when they see whacking her 15-20 times on the head (until her skull was damaged so badly that the medical examiner couldn't be sure how many times he hit her) as not worthy of a harsh penalty. Clearly, they want him to die of old age, or better yet to be released so he has a chance to prove that he has reformed ... or that he hasn't. They will continue reversing the sentence, regardless of the law, because they don't believe in the rule of law, just in their own power and desire for more power.
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.