Trooper’s killer resentenced

[FlimFlam]

How about this, if a DA, Assistant DA, or whoever, is found guilty of intentionally withholding evidence, they get the same punishment the innocent victim got due to their crime?

Still doesn't bring you back if you're the one dead/wrongly imprisoned.

 

[Dave70968]

How about this, if a DA, Assistant DA, or whoever, is found guilty of intentionally withholding evidence, they get the same punishment the innocent victim got due to their crime?

Good luck A) getting a legislature to pass this, and B) getting a prosecutor to charge another prosecutor, especially when the penalties are that severe.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/27/misbehaving-federal-prosecutor

Radley Balko | September 27, 2010

Last week, USA Today published the results of a six-month investigation into misconduct by America’s federal prosecutors. The investigation turned up what Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman called a pattern of “serious, glaring misconduct.” Reporters Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy documented 201 cases in which federal prosecutors were chastised by federal judges for serious ethical breaches, ranging from withholding important exculpatory evidence to lying in court to making incriminating but improper remarks in front of juries.

Of the 201 cases (a very small sampling, I might add), only 1 prosecutor was even temporarily disbarred, let alone criminally sanctioned. That's less than 1/2 of 1%. Do you really think a prosecutor would bring a capital charge against another prosecutor, especially one who was probably in his own office?

Don't get me wrong--I'd love to see Gilchrest and Macy side-by-side on the gallows, but it's not likely to happen by passing a law that would have to be enforced by another prosecutor.

 

[n423]

The sooner the better. Quit wasting our tax dollars on these scum.

what he said

 

[Baron Driver]

I hate to be the one to point this out but this doesn't have to do with his guilt or innocence.
Even if you witness someone do something and they don't get read their miranda rights on arrest, what happens?
The point is, take your time, do everything right, serve justice. The BG gets their punishment.
Don't rush.

If you don't read them their miranda rights on arrest, nothing happens. Miranda is not required to be given except in instances of custodial interrogation. Many officers do this at arrest so any questions answered by the defendant immediately following the arrest will not be excluded, but simply not reading somone Miranda at arrest is not the death knell to a case that so many think it is.

 

[dennishoddy]

I want this SOB dead as much as about anybody, but understand that capital punishment is the most expensive thing we could do, and most expensive by a whole bunch. That is one of the points that supports the anti capital punishment agenda.

About the succesful appeal, somebody probably didn't do their job right the first time. In Texas they just released an innocent man after 18 years of death row (and aren't giving him squat!). He was there largely because a DA lied, and withheld evidence from the defense. The real killer, who initially said this guy helped him, had repeatedly recanted that, and did it again as his last words when he was finally executed. That, plus an iron clad alibi, finally got this guy's second conviction reversed.

Just saying that our screwey legal system, which appears designed to completely bankrupt anyone who gets tied up in it, has some real safeguards that I want there if I get charged with something.

That said, I still want this SOB dead. CB

We had this same situation in Ada Ok. Two guys got ramrodded into death row, only to get released because the procecuter lied, and trumped up evidence.
Sadly to say the procecuter is still in office. Or at least was awhile back.
Still protesting that his lies were the truth.

 

[sigsilly]

That killer should have got the same justice he gave Trooper Green - give him a few seconds to beg for his life for the sake of his kids, then put one in his head.

 

[LightningCrash]

If you don't read them their miranda rights on arrest, nothing happens. Miranda is not required to be given except in instances of custodial interrogation. Many officers do this at arrest so any questions answered by the defendant immediately following the arrest will not be excluded, but simply not reading somone Miranda at arrest is not the death knell to a case that so many think it is.

I liked the part where you say nothing happens and then say something happens.

Haste makes waste. There are too many dirtbags who walked away a free man because people were hasty, malicious, or just careless. There are too many innocent men who were falsely imprisoned because of people who were hasty, malicious, or just careless.

So no need to rush. Aim carefully, exhale, squeeze the trigger, and it will be done. The end result is usually the same, and lot more reliable.

 

[Baron Driver]

I liked the part where you say nothing happens and then say something happens.

Haste makes waste. There are too many dirtbags who walked away a free man because people were hasty, malicious, or just careless. There are too many innocent men who were falsely imprisoned because of people who were hasty, malicious, or just careless.

So no need to rush. Aim carefully, exhale, squeeze the trigger, and it will be done. The end result is usually the same, and lot more reliable.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If Cop A sees Criminal B smoking marijuana on a public sidewalk and arrests him, there is generally no need for a miranda warning that you are so familiar with seeing on your average prime time cop drama. Criminal B will still be charged, and most likely convicted of possession of marijuana. Assuming that the officer can testify as to what he observed and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, in fact, marijuana. If they protest at trial, "But he never read me my rights!" (as pro se defendants are often prone to exclaim with a gleam of ignorance in their eyes), the Prosecution's response will likely be a slightly more eloquent variation of, "so what?"

Miranda is only required for custodial interrogations. Think of it as a mathematical formula. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda. If the defendant is not in custody and an officer intends to question him, then Miranda is not required if the circumstances are such that an ordinary person would feel free to leave. If the defendant is in custody, but the officer does not intend on interrogating him, again, Miranda is not required.

Miranda warnings only become necessary when a defendant is reduced to custody and interrogated by law enforcement. If, at that time the officer fails to mirandize the defendant, anything the defendant says during that interrogation will be excluded at trial. This doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal will go free; there may be sufficient evidence to convict without a confession.

All of this is a rather lengthy way of pointing out that just because an officer arrests someone, they are not automatically required to read miranda, and a criminal will not necessarily go free just for lack of it.

I will agree with you that there is generally no need to rush justice, and I would rather make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed. I just wanted to try and clarify this often misunderstood aspect of criminal law.

**Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice. It is merely a purely academic discussion on certain aspects of Constitutional law. If you have questions regarding the law and/or your rights or obligations under such, consult an attorney licensed in your state.**

 

[AKguy1985]

That killer should have got the same justice he gave Trooper Green - give him a few seconds to beg for his life for the sake of his kids, then put one in his head.

X2 just take him outside the jail in the parking lot and shoot him. Or do it ala schindlers list and let him go a couple hundred yards and nail him then while he is walking away

 

[sigsilly]

Don't get me wrong--I'd love to see Gilchrest and Macy side-by-side on the gallows, but it's not likely to happen by passing a law that would have to be enforced by another prosecutor.

I very much equate what Gilchrest and Macy did to what the Nik Green's killer did.
Scum are on both sides of the law.