Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COURT OVERTURNS MURDER CONVICTION ON BUTTONS
AP | 04/10/2005 | AP

Posted on 04/10/2005 6:13:51 AM PDT by bakatare

News Break 04/10/2005 05:19:43 EST Court Overturns 1995 Murder Conviction

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court has tossed out a 1995 murder conviction and ordered a new trial for a man convicted of killing his estranged wife's fiance. The court said buttons the victim's family wore at the trial may have influenced jurors. Mathew Musladin, who is serving a life sentence, maintained that he acted in self-defense when he shot Tom Studer in 1994.

In ordering a new trial for Musladin, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday said the buttons, which showed Studer's picture, may have biased the jury.

"The buttons essentially argue that Studer was the innocent party and that the defendant was necessarily guilty," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote.

But Judge David Thompson, in his dissent, said the buttons were a symbol of a family's grief.

In 1990, the San Francisco-based appeals court tossed a rape conviction on grounds that jurors might have been prejudiced because some trial observers wore pins that read "Women Against Rape."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: buttons; courtofappeals; murder; ninthcircuit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
9TH Circus Court of Appeals
1 posted on 04/10/2005 6:13:52 AM PDT by bakatare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bakatare
. The court said buttons the victim's family wore at the trial may have influenced jurors.

"May have"? Did anyone even ask the jurors?

2 posted on 04/10/2005 6:16:37 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

All I know if the 9th Circuit is involved, a murderer may walk.


3 posted on 04/10/2005 6:17:36 AM PDT by bakatare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

All I know is the when the 9th circuit is involved, it is likely a murderer will "walk"


4 posted on 04/10/2005 6:18:41 AM PDT by bakatare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bakatare

The 9th Circus clowns strike again.

Is the victim still dead, or did they reverse that, as well?


5 posted on 04/10/2005 6:19:28 AM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bakatare
The 9th Circuit is an absolute disgrace to any semblance of justice in their jurisdiction. Out of control judiciary? Nah, just business as usual in this screwed-up court.
6 posted on 04/10/2005 6:20:05 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bakatare

You could argue tha just the presence of family members at the trial could influence the jury. By this asinine reasoning, family members should not be allowed to show up.


7 posted on 04/10/2005 6:22:32 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bakatare
Well, well, what a SHOCK!

The two majority 'judges' were appointed by Carter (Reinhardt) and Clinton (Marsha S. Berzon) and the dissenting JUDGE (David R. Thompson) was appointed by RR.

The complete 19 page "OPINION" is HERE but note it's in .pdf

8 posted on 04/10/2005 6:26:11 AM PDT by Condor51 (Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bakatare
All I know is the when the 9th circuit is involved, it is likely a murderer will "walk"

Unless the perp did something against a fellow JUDGE.

9 posted on 04/10/2005 6:27:06 AM PDT by John Thornton ("Appeasers always hope that the crocodile will eat them last." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The presence of family members of the defendant can also influence the jury, by this reasoning.

Do any of us think that the parents of Michael Jackson should be barred from the courtroom because their presence might influence the jury positively towards Jackson?

10 posted on 04/10/2005 6:28:55 AM PDT by John Thornton ("Appeasers always hope that the crocodile will eat them last." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bakatare

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the 9th circuit has a pretty good point in this case. I don't know about overturning a conviction, but the judge in the original case screwed up by allowing the family to wear the buttons.

By having a button with a message like that it's like allowing them to testify without being cross examined.


11 posted on 04/10/2005 6:29:54 AM PDT by MMcC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bakatare
Black robe klan white robe klan, they both terrorize the Innocent.
12 posted on 04/10/2005 6:32:25 AM PDT by dts32041 (We have instituted our own set of Nuremberg laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MMcC

But where do you draw the line? Any emotions shown by the audience can serve to influence the jury. This ruling suggest that no one should be allowed in the court room because just their presence could influence the jury somehow. Suggesting the jury members decided the case based on buttons is way too much of a stretch.


13 posted on 04/10/2005 6:35:24 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MMcC
Whew, for a minute there I thought I was going to be the lone stranger in this case.

The court did the right thing. The original judge messed up badly by permitting these kinds of displays. You can argue a lot of things, but buttons are a display.

What if, just What If, the guy's story is true? I'd hate to be in that position.

And yes, displays of emotionalism have no place in a court that is suppose to be the pinnacle of objectivity.

9Th did ok in this case.
14 posted on 04/10/2005 6:35:30 AM PDT by Al Gator (Remember to pillage BEFORE you burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MMcC

I agree with you. No one should be allowed to go into court to propagandize and agitate. The button-wearers should have been told to take off their "messages," get out, or be arrested for contempt of court.


15 posted on 04/10/2005 6:37:55 AM PDT by aQ_code_initiate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Not true. If buttons are as passive as you say, why aren't you allowed to wear a candidates button into a polling place?

Buttons are nothing but miniature billboards and as such have no place in a courtroom.

And yes, unfortunately, many jury pools look like they came from a Jerry Springer show, so one needs to be careful about what is worn in court.


16 posted on 04/10/2005 6:38:58 AM PDT by Al Gator (Remember to pillage BEFORE you burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I think you draw the line at communicating with the jury through spoken or written word. Would you have let the family stand and make a comment? How about hold up signs? I think these buttons are the same as doing either of those.

Like I said. The original judge screwed up on this one.


17 posted on 04/10/2005 6:39:06 AM PDT by MMcC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bakatare

The judge who allowed this demonstation in his or her courtroom should be brought up on charges.


18 posted on 04/10/2005 6:44:53 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

If buttons are OK, how about armbands ? Hand held signs ?


19 posted on 04/10/2005 6:46:16 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The line really is well defined. Outbursts of emotion are unpredictable, but can be contained with a simple call to order by the judge. If the parties having the emotional episode can't control themselves, then they get kicked out for being a disruption. Deliberate messages and statements worn on clothing, on the other hand, are clearly beyond the pale. If, for example, jurors can be deemed to have been compromised merely by having read newspaper accounts of their trials, being exposed to "messages" from interested parties also would certainly qualify as a form of compromise.
20 posted on 04/10/2005 6:46:19 AM PDT by aQ_code_initiate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson