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.
“Yes it MIGHT be grounds. One appeals judge wasn’t convinced of it.”
Which I think is less noteworthy than the fact that two judges were convinced of it.
“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.”
No, not really. The judges didn’t overturn the decision based on any of the facts that were at question during the trial. They just ruled that the case should never have made it to trial in the first place, because the District Attorney, far from “doing his best”, used legal trickery to try to skirt the statute of limitations.
“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.”
I really don’t see much point in trying to guess what the attorneys were thinking. A good attorney would try to get their client freed by any means possible. However, to say that the judges “fell for” some trickery by the attorneys is just absurd. The defense attorneys had no power to force the DA to overcharge their client and put the case at jeopardy. That was the DA’s decision.
“Yes, someone has over-ruled a jury here. This man is now deemed innocent. What did the jury deem him?”
No, nobody overruled a jury. They simply negated the trial, and those are two completely different things. Yes, the jury found him guilty, but apparently what they found him guilty of was not a prosecutable crime under the law, since the statue of limitations had expired.
“It’s over. They can’t even try him again, based on the judge’s opinion the statute time had run out.”
Good. If the statute is up, they shouldn’t have charged him in the first place.
“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.”
Well, guilty people go free every single day in this country, and I, for one, wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s the price we pay to live in a land with careful jurisprudence. If you make it easier to prosecute the guilty, then you also make it a lot easier to persecute the innocent, and governments have already proven they can’t be trusted not to abuse that power.