It would be absolutely surprising if there was not an attempt to vacate the verdict based on this.
It would be absolutely surprising if there was not an attempt to vacate the verdict based on this.
I thought the same thing when I heard it.
Still....
It purports to be the text of a death sentence handed down by a judge of the U.S. District Court in the New Mexico Territory in 1881. A note introduces the text as a verbatim transcript of the sentence and says that is was read in Taos in an adobe stable serving as a court. The judge is not named.
The sentence:
“Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, in a few short weeks it will be spring. The snows of winter will flee away, the ice will vanish, and the air will become soft and balmy. In short, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass, but you won’t be there.
“The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea, the timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots, the glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you won’t be here to see.
“From every treetop some wild woods songster will carol his mating song; butterflies will sport in the sunshine, the busy bee will hum happy as it pursues its accustomed vacation; the gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature will be glad, but you. You won’t be here to enjoy it because I command the sheriff or some other officers of the country to lead you out to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until you are dead.
“And then, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, I further command that such officer or officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, so that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, bloodthirsty, throat-cutting, murdering son of a bitch.”
After that, she said later on:
“Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls—these young women in their childhood—I would allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/larry-nassars-victims-deserved-a-judge-like-rosemarie-aquilina.html
Again, I believe most people agree with the sentiment, but it just gives him more ammo for at least a sentencing appeal. Irresponsible.
“It was a very, very unwise remark. “
Perhaps, but it was the truth! And I believe that this judge was personally moved by the depth of the depravity this creep showed. In a time when far too many of our judges have no moral compass, it was refreshing to read. For me, I give her a thumbs up.
That is why the doctrine of harmless error was contrived. The greater damage may be to the judge’s prospect for advancement.
If she would have said “after” may G-d have mercy on your soul, would that be more tempered and not get her into this legal morass.. BTW, I know kids going to the school, I hear through the grapevine, they are perplexed and not happy that the school is under the microscope from the perspective they are just going their now, this was in the past etc etc because of this dirtbag, and that is not to exonerate him, I am sure that is not their intent, and that word isn’t even strong enough to describe him...
Umm, wise or unwise, the frakin problem is that people, in general, cannot handle the truth - The Judge told the truth....with a 175 year sentence, his ‘death warrant’ is a given being he will die in prison.