Posted on 01/23/2013 1:17:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
A woman returning from a cruise vacation is being held in a central Florida jail on a warrant from 1991.
Brevard County Jail records show 41-year-old Robin Hall is being held on an out-of-county warrant. She’ll stay there until she is transferred to Orange County — possibly on Thursday — where she was arrested more than 20 years ago for stealing a pack of cigarettes at a local Wal-Mart. She was 18 at the time.
Hall tells WESH-TV she owes the state $85 in court costs.
“I just want it all to be over so I can go home,” Hall told the station.
She was taken into custody last week after arriving at Port Canaveral from vacation with her family. WESH reports that when authorities checked the cruise ship’s passenger list for terrorists, they found a warrant for Hall.
WESH-TV reports that Hall, who is an architect, designs jet engines for Pratt & Whitney.
Jail records don’t list an attorney.
OK. Let’s say I fatally plug a high-level government official—You can choose the branch, office, and party. I then go hide out in Bangkok for the next seven years. At seven years and one day, I can return to the US and all will be forgiven?
“WESH-TV reports that Hall, who is an architect, designs jet engines for Pratt & Whitney.”
I’ve flown behind Pratt & Whitney engines. Thankfully, none were designed by an ARCHITECT!
There is no statute of limitations for murder. But you already knew that, right? Right? The law recognizes the difference in magnitude between murder and petty theft.
Both murder and theft were big enough to make it into the Commandments.
You are a virtual walking encyclopedia, aren't you? Is there anything in the Bible that might even hint a person should forgive somebody over a small incident a long time ago OR should a good Christian pursue with all vigor the smallest amount due with interest regardless of time and energy? Thrall me with your ken.
I accept your capitulation.
LOL!! That’s a good one. When you’re out of ammo and no leg to stand on . . declare yourself a winner and slink away. Bwahahahaha. I like starting my day off with a laugh and you provided it.
According to Findlaw, there is no statute of limitations for murder or other felonies for which you can get death or life imprisonment.
For misdemeanors, it's either 1 or to years depending on the severity. If you're continuously not in the state, then three years gets added.
So according to the reference at the link, statute of limitations should have expired a long time ago. She probably thought that for $80, it was not worth fighting.
Actually, when you resort to name-calling and sarcasm, you’ve lost the argument.
There seems to be a lot of (unnecessary) confusion surrounding this, so I’ll spell it out to both of you here.
1), Wal-Mart is no way culpable, or the target of a potential suit, as Wal-Mart’s sole part in this was originally calling the police when the theft took place. Given the lack of severity of the offense, she was no doubt issued a summons and sent on her way. Possibly, she was was taken in, processed, and sent on her way. Either way, a distinction without relevance. She’s in trouble because whether via citation or from the bench during arraignment, she was given a summons to appear in court at a future date, which she ignored.
2), There is no statute of limitations on outstanding warrants. The statute of limitations limits the time after a crime has been committed that a charge may be filed. Once a charge is filed, it remains legally active until it is resolved one way or another. That can be anything from a verdict either way, to the court receiving a certificate of death.
3), The outstanding warrant had nothing to do with the theft of a pack of cigarettes. It doesn’t matter if the original charge is murder one, or jay walking. When a bench warrant is issued for failure to appear, it stays on the books forever. The failure to appear is a much more serious charge than the original theft of the pack cigarettes.
Thank you for your posting.
Again, your confusion is showing. The warrant she was picked up on was for failure to appear. The original charge is totally without relevance here.
Perhaps she snuck back into the store and returned them.
As she was obviously caught, the cigarettes were no doubt returned during apprehension.
Or sent an anonymous letter reimbursing them for the loss and an apology and the store conveniently "lost" it.
Which is dandy, however, that is not an affirmative defense against theft, let alone the actual charge she was eventually picked up on, failure to appear.
Where are the actual people that witnessed this right now? How are their memories? Could they pick her out of a line-up all these years later? I'm no F.Lee Bailey but I pity the company that takes me to small claims court.
They aren't needed. The theft of the pack of cigarettes is a paltry and inconsequential offense when juxtaposed with the more serious charge of failing to obey the summons. As for that, no more proof is required than she didn't answer when her name was called, the judge noted it for the record, and issued a warrant for her arrest from the bench. All of which was neatly recorded by the court reporter.
Did I mention she was hard of hearing? Where is the original summons? Perhaps it listed the wrong place for her to show. Are the original judge and bailiff available for witnesses to the no-show? Did I mention she suffers from amnesia? The American Disabilities Act is supposed to protect people from such injustice as this.
Oh come on, now you're really reaching, and you know it. Even if she were, our system is indeed setup to deal with offenders who are stone deaf.
Where is the original summons?
You can bet that a copy is still on file.
Are the original judge and bailiff available for witnesses to the no-show?
Who cares? They don't need to be. Court transcripts are held as indisputable evidence. So much so that courts of review admit no evidence, accept no testimony, but instead rule entirely based on the transcript of the lower court.
Did I mention she suffers from amnesia?
And I'm sure you can prove that. Or maybe you shouldn't, as her diminished capacity would certainly disqualify her from meaningful employment with a defense contractor such as Pratt and Whitney.
Face dude. You were wrong, you know you were wrong, but you just don't want to publicly acknowledge for whatever personal reason you may have. Since you've obviously backed off from the preposterous notion that Wal-Mart can somehow be sued over this, I'm just going to let this be my last reply.
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.