Only because a public service lawyer agreed to represent him pro bono and appeal the baseless, horrible decision of the trial judge. But for that he'd still be locked up. Looks to me like "paranoia and hysteria" are why he is now a free man.
I don’t know why I get suckered into argueing with someone who either can’t read or reads the article then re-writes it to suit his oppinion.
This isn’t directed at you.
So much disinformation here.
If the Rutherford Institute attorney had not represented him, the ACLU was willing to. If these nonprofits hadn't, he would have received a court-appointed attorney. The only circumstances under which he would have been left without representation would be if he had insisted on it. This is very basic stuff.
There was no "trial judge" - there were two hearings and no trial since this was not presented as a criminal matter but as a civil one - i.e. commitment, not indictment.
Even if it had been a criminal matter, there would have been no trial at this stage but a remand hearing.
Looks to me like "paranoia and hysteria" are why he is now a free man.
Do you think the judge who rejected the involuntary commitment was swayed by any internet furor?
Or is it more likely that he reviewed the evidence prooffered to him by both sides and found in Raub's favor?