“Seems to me all these defense claims should have been made during the trial. If they weren’t, something stinks about the defense, not the law.”
I don’t know if they were brought up in the trial or not. If they weren’t, then that itself might be grounds for an appeal based on incompetent representation for the defendant.
“Why bother to hold trials these days. When 2 of 3 can overrule 12 of 12, it makes a trial a farce.”
Nobody has overruled the jury here. The panel ruled that the indictment was invalid, and it should never have gone to trial. They made no judgement as to the jury’s ruling.
Yes it MIGHT be grounds. One appeals judge wasn’t convinced of it. This decision came down to one swing vote.
So essentially weeks or months worth of trail, the jury deliberating, the judge doing his best, the district attorney doing his best... it all rests in the hands of one liberal judge at any given time.
I doubt an FBI agent had the worst attorney in town. He probably had one of the best.
Your arguments are reasoned. They don’t satisfy me.
Attornies do screw up, so it’s concievable to me they may have made this mistake. Now, let’s say I concede on that. What does that tell you?
Does it tell you they were incompetant, or does it tell you they knew they were going to lose based on the evidence, and they wanted to get their guy sprung?
As possible as anything else we’re discussing here, they did it on purpose and two appealate judges fell right into it.
Yes, someone has over-ruled a jury here. This man is now deemed innocent. What did the jury deem him?
It’s over. They can’t even try him again, based on the judge’s opinion the statute time had run out.
I appreciate you advocating for your position, and I think you do it reasonably. It is still very unsettling that a guy can do what this guy was found guilty of, and he’s going to be set scott free based on the real likelihood that not your or my arguments hold sway here, but rather a liberal judge entered into the mix.