Molest Mistrial Defendant's Mother Seeks Comments
The mother of the defendant in the child molest case reported in the Times- Standard today replied to the comment I made on their web site. She'd like to hear more opinions on the three options available after the mistrial was declared: retrial, further plea bargaining or dismissal.
I've already commented that since the jury was deadlocked at 11 to 1 for acquittal, they should just drop it and dismiss the case. I could see retrying it if it was the other way around, 11 to 1 for conviction, but seems to me they've got a long way to go to get there.
Besides, I always wonder about these retrials. How far do you go with them? Keep retrying until you get a conviction? That doesn't seem right.
I believe you need a Facebook account to comment on the Times- Standard web site. Feel free to comment here if you don't have one or can't get into their site. They only give something like six free views before you have to pay.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 12:52 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Instead of a retrial, how about a revote? Let's get a new DA who can get the job done.
Grandma got the situation wrong. The guy wasn't found "innocent beyond a reasonable doubt."
A verdict of guilty must be beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. The slang way of saying that is, "If you're going to find him guilty, you'd better be damned sure."
So, in other words, 11 jurors had reasonable doubt. Even when a "not guilty" verdict is achieved, it's not the same meaning as "innocent." Courts do not declare people innocent. Newspapers do, and only because they get in a heap of trouble if they print a typo such as "guilty" when they meant "not guilty" (and so, they use "innocent" instead).
Let's get a new DA who can get the job done.
This probably had nothing to do with Gallegos competence. Never mind that you're assuming you know more about the case than 11 jurors who voted to acquit.
Even when a "not guilty" verdict is achieved, it's not the same meaning as "innocent." Courts do not declare people innocent..
I'd suggest it's pretty much the same thing as innocent if all twelve jurors agree he's not guilty.
The way you seem to be looking at it, the defendant is always guilty. All the jury can do is convict him, or say they don't have enough evidence to convict. Sorry if I don't like the sound of that.
It's true that just because someone isn't convicted of a crime doesn't mean he didn't do it. I'd suggest that it's also true that just because a person is charged with a crime doesn't mean that he did it.
To assume once someone is charged with something that they're guilty no matter what the facts of the case up being, or what the jury decides, is a frightening idea to me.
I agree with Ernie on this one 11/1 is a strong indication that the case against the defendant (innocent until proven guilty) was not strong enough to convince a jury of the charges against him.
I also wonder about all this try, try, try stuff if first you don't succeed. Poor defendant... go through the stress of the whole trial over again. Poor us, paying for all these trials. Days and days of testimony, new jurors lives upended for the trial, another week off the court calendar for a courtroom for a "big jury trial." What a shame.
I also feel for the alleged victim in this case, if 11/1 are wrong, they're feeling horrible right now as in the world doesn't believe...
I feel for the relatives of both, none of whom would have chosen any of these experiences given a choice.
I thought the DA must have some really strong evidence to file these kinds of cases, but once filed, what happens? Do they somehow forget to put it where the jury can see it? Or what?
Fred, my comment about the DA not getting the job done was a reference to his entire time in office. Two words come to mind: train wreck.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
Anonymous #4: Harp all ya want on Gallegos, for HOJ shits on the Sheriff Department's rogue deputies who frack with innocent people, write false reports, then decide because the rogues get pinned, the department will cover-over and up certain flaws , the higher ups (including Downey Dipshit) deviate upon deviations prior in order to cover-up or make it appear as if viola, the rogues are all-of-a-sudden following proper protocols. Then, add the at times sham Grand Jury, the inadequate Citizens Law Enforcement Review Commission, and what we have is a failure to communicate facts and truths, especially in a "cumulative fashion". HOJ always gets a good laugh when so-called "caring community types" take on responsibilities to be "open-minded", but really just attempt to shut the door in order to not deal with whatever is going on internally behind the scenes because sometimes, the concern is really no less than public shame.
Further, just because Gallegos has a department rife with problem causers, does not mean Gallegos should be held 100% responsible, but he is. So, he fires and must consider rehiring, but labeled as a jerkoff. Alas though, Gallegos gets the blame because he is the point man. Obviously, Gallegos has made mistakes, but who else has not made mistakes in various departments other than the DA's office. In fact, can't blame Gallegos for the work done by others that preceeds his input or oversites. HOJ knows of one family, three brothers and a situation with the DA's office that has HOJ scratching his temples, but since HOJ is not directly involved, HOJ must sit back and wait, learn more. For those first hand experiences, HOJ nailed the donkey's tail beyond all repair, and the whole pinata game, well, candy is a falling like the sky is cryin'.
As far as this case, HOJ just says the Jury knows more about the facts that renders any HOJ thoughts as futile. Until further details, no comment! - HOJ
Post a Comment
<< Home