[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Florida Woman Faced 10 Years For ‘Meth’ That Was ‘Just a Rock’
Source: The Appeal
URL Source: https://theappeal.org/florida-woman ... for-meth-that-was-just-a-rock/
Published: Mar 26, 2019
Author: Meg O'Connor
Post Date: 2019-03-28 10:31:32 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 799
Comments: 18

A scandal of falsified drug arrests is spreading at a Florida sheriff’s office that has also spent more than $1.33 million settling excessive force lawsuits and is at the center of the increasingly troubled Robert Kraft case.

Melissa Morales was riding her bicycle near the Flamingo Diner just off of U.S. Highway 1 in Stuart, Florida, when she was stopped by a Martin County sheriff’s deputy. It was 10 p.m. but still warm on an evening in late October 2018, and Deputy Steven O’Leary told Morales he stopped her because her bike had no lights.

Morales apologized and promised to get lights, but O’Leary decided to search her purse regardless. Inside, he found what he described as a “white, rocklike substance.” He then ran a field test that he said yielded a positive result for methamphetamine. The 37-year-old Floridian told O’Leary that what he claimed was meth was “just a rock.”

Despite Morales’ protestations and the fact that field tests are notoriously unreliable, O’Leary arrested Morales and took her to jail. O’Leary said that when he searched Morales at the facility, he “observed a white substance fall out of Melissa’s pant leg and onto the ground … the same substance I had located in Melissa’s purse.” O’Leary said this second substance also tested positive for methamphetamine, and he charged her with possession of the drug and introducing contraband into a correctional facility.

Because Morales couldn’t afford to pay her $10,000 bond, she was jailed 49 days in Martin County. She also faced a 10-year prison sentence. On Dec. 11, Morales entered a guilty plea in her case. She was sentenced to six months in jail, ordered to pay hundreds of dollars in fines, and had her driver’s license revoked.

But on Jan. 16, Morales was freed. The judge vacated her sentence after Morales’s public defender filed a motion stating he had been informed of “newly discovered issues surrounding the arresting officer in this case.”

“The substance alleged to be methamphetamine is, in fact, not a controlled substance,” wrote Shane Manship of the 19th Circuit Public Defender’s Office.

A history of excessive force

Morales is now one of 11 people freed from jail following revelations that O’Leary falsified narcotics arrests. Substances that O’Leary claimed were narcotics turned out to be sand, laundry detergent, and headache medicine. Martin County Sheriff William Snyder said the State Attorney’s Office notified the agency Jan. 9 about O’Leary’s questionable arrests. Since then, the Martin County Sheriff has been reviewing 80 other arrests made by O’Leary during his 11 months with the agency. Snyder fired O’Leary on Jan. 15, but no criminal charges have been brought against the officer.

The Sheriff’s Office did not respond to emails seeking comment.

O’Leary’s bogus narcotics arrests aren’t the only instances of misconduct in the Martin County Sheriff’s Office, the same agency that spearheaded the Orchids of Asia Day Spa bust yielding an arrest of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft on solicitation of prostitution charges.

Since 2000, the Martin County sheriff has spent more than $1.33 million settling lawsuits brought by people who say officers used excessive force, falsified reports, or made wrongful arrests.

Story continues HERE

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Deputy Steven O’Leary told Morales he stopped her because her bike had no lights.

Morales apologized and promised to get lights, but O’Leary decided to search her purse regardless.

Two over officious, absurdly intrusive Gestapo moves. This isn't "Law Enforcement"; It's serial bullying.

That said, I believe this is a rogue case of LE. I don't think it's typical of local LE.

...80 other arrests made by O’Leary during his 11 months with the agency. Snyder fired O’Leary on Jan. 15, but no criminal charges have been brought against the officer.

Firstly, it took 80 arrests for Martin County Sheriff William Snyder to fire O'Leary??

Secondly, Snyder needs to be investigated AND jailed himself. He's obviously a part of the problem.

Thirdly, how exactly does O'Leary face ZERO criminal charges? Could it be because Snyder is part of a conspiracy to shake-down and molest victims?

Whether Chicago (Smollet) or this case, OR, Comey and the Coup, OR Hitlery and Bubba, the Elites' are purposely inciting the people, hoping to create vigilante justice. THAT would insure the Gun Confiscation they're itching for. Unless they achieve it the usual way: FALSE FLAGS (yeah, as in NZ.)

Liberator  posted on  2019-03-28   15:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard, MisterWhite, Nolu Chan (#0)

MW, this is where you get to step up and applaud the actions of this criminal fraudster.

Nolu, here's another case of someone voluntarily pleading guilty in spite of -- as determined by a sitting judge in the case -- the person was, stating it objectively, likely completely innocent of the crime accused given there was no credible evidence to sustain a conviction.

But she pled guilty anyway.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-03-28   16:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Pinguinite (#2)

MW, this is where you get to step up and applaud the actions of this criminal fraudster. But she pled guilty anyway.

She pled guilty because she was guilty. She was released only because of the arresting officer's questionable prior arrests.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-03-28   17:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

She pled guilty because she faced a 10 year prison term, and by pleading guilty, she only got 6 months, some of which was already served.

Maybe her confidence in the integrity of the judicial system was somewhat compromised for some bizarre reason.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-03-30   10:43:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Pinguinite (#4)

She pled guilty because she faced a 10 year prison term

For "just a rock"? Plus, you don't get 10 years for simple possession.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-03-30   11:51:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Pinguinite (#2)

Nolu, here's another case of someone voluntarily pleading guilty in spite of -- as determined by a sitting judge in the case -- the person was, stating it objectively, likely completely innocent of the crime accused given there was no credible evidence to sustain a conviction.

You misstate the matter. The cop's misbehavior in other cases established that the evidence offered in this case was not reliable, and a conviction could not stand.

No finding of complete innocence was found. The absence of reliable evidence does not establish innocence, it establishes insufficient evidence to prove the charges.

The potential sentence is attributable to the charge of "Drug Possession or Sale."

Everyone charged with a crime refusing a plea deal and pleading "not guilty" would address your concerns. A different concern for those not making bail would be that the criminal docket would morph to appear like the immigration mess at the Mexican border.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5532

Most Serious Crime: Drug Possession or Sale

A kid swallowed all the Scrabble letters. Now his poop shows more intelligence than a libertarian.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-05-23   17:14:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: nolu chan (#6)

No finding of complete innocence was found. The absence of reliable evidence does not establish innocence, it establishes insufficient evidence to prove the charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but proving innocence is rarely, if ever, the task of the defense in criminal court, and for good reason: Proving innocence essentially requires proving a negative which is normally an impossible task.

It is why the standard in criminal court is "Innocent until proven guilty" and not the reverse.

I infer from your response thaht you refuse to concede that anyone is ever coerced or motivated by legal circumstance to opt to plead guilty to a charge of which they honestly believe they are completely innocent. That is either incredibly naive or willful disbelief. Such coersion is a real factor and a strong defect in the current judicial system.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-05-23   18:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Pinguinite (#7)

[Pinguinite #7] Correct me if I'm wrong, but proving innocence is rarely, if ever, the task of the defense in criminal court, and for good reason: Proving innocence essentially requires proving a negative which is normally an impossible task.

You are not wrong here, but you were wrong in your claim at #2:

[Pinguinite #2] as determined by a sitting judge in the case -- the person was, stating it objectively, likely completely innocent of the crime accused given there was no credible evidence to sustain a conviction

No sitting judge is reported to have made such a claim of complete innocence.

[Pinguinite #7] I infer from your response thaht you refuse to concede that anyone is ever coerced or motivated by legal circumstance to opt to plead guilty to a charge of which they honestly believe they are completely innocent.

You infer incorrectly. It is an everyday occurrence for a defendant to plead guilty to a charge of which they honestly believe they are completely innocent. Some have pleaded guilty of murder while maintaining their innocence.

Maintaining innocence while pleading guilty to murder, out of fear of the death penalty, "represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to a defendant, especially one represented by competent counsel" and "is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment." The motive of the defendant in pleading guilty does not infer his choice is less than intelligent and voluntary.

It is not compelled in a legal sense, and that is what matters in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

An Alford plea (also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea and the Alford doctrine), in United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/North_Carolina_v._Alford.pdf

North Carolina v. Alford, U.S. Supreme Court, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)

NORTH CAROLINA v. ALFORD

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14.
Argued November 17, 1969
Reargued October 14, 1970­
Decided November 23, 1970

Appellee was indicted for the capital crime of first-degree murder. At that time North Carolina law provided for the penalty of life imprisonment when a plea of guilty was accepted to a first-degree murder charge; for the death penalty following a jury verdict of guilty, unless the jury recommended life imprisonment; and for a penalty of from two to 30 years' imprisonment for second­ degree murder. Appellee's attorney, in the face of strong ev idence of guilt, recommended a guilty plea, but left the decision to appellee. The prosecutor agreed to accept a plea of guilty to second-degree murder. The trial court heard damaging evidence from certain witnesses before accepting a plea. Appellee pleaded guilty, although disclaiming guilt, because of the threat of the death penalty, and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals, on an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, found that appellee's guilty plea was involuntary because it was motivated principally by fear of the death penalty.

Held: The trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting appellee's guilty plea. Pp. 31-39. (a) A guilty plea that represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to a defendant, especially one represented by competent counsel, is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because it was entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, P.31.

A kid swallowed all the Scrabble letters. Now his poop shows more intelligence than a libertarian.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-05-23   20:08:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#3)

"She pled guilty because she was guilty."

No, she pled guilty, to get a much smaller sentence. She could not afford lawyers.

You, in her place would to the same.

A Pole  posted on  2019-05-24   4:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A Pole (#9)

You, in her place would to the same.

If I were innocent and facing 10 years in prison I'd find the money to re-test the "substance". Then I'd sue to recover the costs.

You would do the same.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-05-25   11:20:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan (#8)

[Pinguinite #2] as determined by a sitting judge in the case -- the person was, stating it objectively, likely completely innocent of the crime accused given there was no credible evidence to sustain a conviction

No sitting judge is reported to have made such a claim of complete innocence.

I did qualify it with the word "likely", which is the best that can be done given the fact that no one is ever proved innocent.

[Pinguinite #7] I infer from your response thaht you refuse to concede that anyone is ever coerced or motivated by legal circumstance to opt to plead guilty to a charge of which they honestly believe they are completely innocent.

You infer incorrectly. It is an everyday occurrence for a defendant to plead guilty to a charge of which they honestly believe they are completely innocent. Some have pleaded guilty of murder while maintaining their innocence.

Maintaining innocence while pleading guilty to murder, out of fear of the death penalty, "represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to a defendant, especially one represented by competent counsel" and "is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment." The motive of the defendant in pleading guilty does not infer his choice is less than intelligent and voluntary.

It is not compelled in a legal sense, and that is what matters in court.

Well then I stand corrected. You DO acknowledge that people who **honestly** are convinced of their innocence are "coersed or motivated" to plead guilty simply due to legal circumstance related to the honest belief of a high likelihood of conviction in spite of their honest belief in their innocence. It's just that this coersion does not **legally** constitute being "compelled" to do so -- in the meaning of the 5th Amendment -- and is therefore, I presume, a perfectly moral event within the judicial system.

But I never suggested it was coersion or motivation "under the 5th Amendment" for one to take a guilty plea in such a circumstance. I said it was coersion and motivation without qualification. So if you want a qualification, it's readily apparrant that if you tell a defendant that if they plea guilty to a crime that they will only serve a few months, but if they trouble the court and prosecution with pain and expense of proving their case, they could go to jail for 10 years, that is BY DEFINITION, coersion and motivation, in NO small way, for someone to plead guilty.

And make no mistake... someone refusing to plea guilty DOES trouble the court and prosecution with the burden of proving the charges. If it did NOT trouble the court to prove the case, then tell me what purpose the guilty plea serves within the system? That's an honest question, if it's something else. If I have to spell it out, it goes like this:

Prosecutor to accused: "I don't want to go through the trouble of having to prove you are actually guilty of this crime that I'm told you committed. My time is valuable. And since it's more important to me to economize my time and save money and make my life easier than it is to ensure, within a court of law to determine the certainty required (beyond reasonable doubt) your own guilt of the crime you are accused of, let's do this and both agree to screw the court and we'll just compromise. You pretend that you are guilty and I'll only mar you life a little bit. But just to make sure you understand, if you dare to make me actually do my job by proving beyond reasonable doubt in court that you committed this thing, then you really don't give me any motivation to go easy on you if you are found guilty and you could get a 10 year sentence instead of the 6 months I'll agree to otherwise. And believe you me, I don't care if you are actually innocent of this crime. It's not my job to care. It's instead, my job to vigorously prosecute you and do my damnist to compel this judge and jury to return a guilty verdict, because that is my job, and I know all the tricks in the book to make that happen. How many do you know? And if you need a lawyer, you are going to have to pay for one while I, who will prosecute you, will not only NOT have to pay to prosecute you, but I will actually get paid to prosecute you. So while the case proceeds, you'll be getting poorer while I'll be getting richer. Or you can get a court-appointed attorney, all of whom I know, but the first thing they'll advise you to do is to take this plea deal.

So whatdaya say, huh??? How about we agree to this plea and call it a day?? You know you want to go home sooner rather than later.

Well, Nolu, with or without the 5th Amendment, I would consider that "coersion and motivation" by the everyday sense of the word, to plea guilty.

But perhaps you would find my characterization unfair, but how unfair is it, really? Can you tell me with a straight face that that's not pretty much how it really goes down? Can you tell me with a straight face that the purpose of the guilty plea is NOT to lesson the trouble and expense on the prosecution and court? And if it is, isn't that a tacit admission that easing the trouble on the state is a higher priority than ensuring that TRUE justice is served upon the accused?

I say it is. Now it's clear to me that -- and this is not meant as any insult at all -- you regard the legal system with the same ferver as a religious zealot does a religious faith. Just as a religious zealot will never find fault with the deity he advocates, you will never find fault with the legal system you advocate. In both cases, pointing out defects will be met with a refusal to concede what is obvious within the light of day as a defense delves back into reasons why what is obvious is, well, not so obvious. In this case, you cited the Alford plea and a USSC finding that pleaing guilty in spite of a good faith belief in innocence is okay because -- and you brought up a straw man argument here I did not raise -- it did not violate the 5th Amendment when I made no such reference to the 5th.

A Christian religious zealot might similarly defend a doctrine of how anyone not believing in Jesus will go to hell for all eternity, and when asked about the justice served with this doctrine in the case of a 10 year-old who dies within a society within which Jesus is never spoken about, would revert to the defense that it's God divine right as our creator to place his children in such circumstances where eternal doom is certain.

The reaction is the same Nolu, at least from me, which is: "Well, okay, if that's what you believe, but it doesn't make it right or moral".

Coersion DOES exist in the courts with regard to guilty pleas. Period. And when you cite legal precedents and case law that insists that it doesn't happen, that's simply a case of conveniently saying the legal system is sound because the legal system self-certified it's sound. It's no different than saying the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God. We need to test these things against and outside source as self-certification means nothing.

Finally, a case in point: The Declaration of Independence. I suspect you agree it is NOT a legal document in US law. Not only that, but all who signed it did in fact, commit treason against the legal and lawful authority, the state of Britain, over the 13 colonies. There was nothing legal about it. What it was instead was a moral document, and some key words in it:

"... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is nothing in this clause that qualifies it with "after it being met with the legal approval of the existing authorities".

So this is not a legal claim. This is a moral claim. And I submit to you this is evidence that at least within the American culture, it is moral law that trumps statutory law or even constitutional law. Any time there is a discrepancy between moral right and statutory right, it is moral right that must prevail. And it is on that basis that I say that offering anyone reduced sentence in return for a guilty plea is the antithesis of morality, and it is most prevelent in the US legal system.

Somehow, I don't think you would agree. If not, then I submit you lack a moral compass to guide you in your professional legal work, whatever capacity that is.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-05-25   13:51:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: nolu chan (#6)

The absence of reliable evidence does not establish innocence, it establishes insufficient evidence to prove the charges.

And if it establishes insufficient evidence to make a case against this woman, then not only should she not have been charged but the so called allegations or assertions become moot. Had I represented this woman, I would have contended that due to insufficient evidence against my client, I motion this case be thrown out for lack of evidence in the form of a Demurrer or Motion to Dismiss.

goldilucky  posted on  2019-05-25   23:26:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: goldilucky (#12)

And if it establishes insufficient evidence to make a case against this woman, then not only should she not have been charged but the so called allegations or assertions become moot.

The misconduct of the cop in an unrelated case was discovered after Melissa Morales had pleaded guilty and was in jail. The evidence in the Morales case and others involving Deputy Steven O'Leary were lab tested and the lab tests showed, in multiple instances, that the presumptive field tests reported by O'Leary as positive for drugs, were proven to be negative for drugs.

https://theappeal.org/florida-woman-faced-10-years-for-meth-that-was-just-a-rock/

The judge vacated her sentence after Morales’s public defender filed a motion stating he had been informed of “newly discovered issues surrounding the arresting officer in this case.”

Had I represented this woman, I would have contended that due to insufficient evidence against my client, I motion this case be thrown out for lack of evidence in the form of a Demurrer or Motion to Dismiss.

A demurrer was available when Morales pleaded guilty. A demurrer is a pre-trial motion filed with the response to the complaint, or shortly thereafter.

The cause to claim insufficient evidence did not exist until Morales had already pleaded guilty and went to jail.

As a matter of law, a demurrer to evidence argues that the evidence is insufficient whether true or not.

Demurrer to evidence. This proceeding is analogous to a demurrer to a pleading. It is an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insuf­ficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue. The practice has been largely superseded by motions for nonsuit and directed verdict. Thus, a motion to nonsuit, a motion to dismiss at close of plaintiffs evidence for failure to prove essen­tial facts, and a defendant’s motion for a directed ver­dict, made at close of the evidence, have been held to be equivalent to a "demurrer to the evidence” for insuffi­ciency to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. A motion to exclude evidence has the effect of a demurrer to the evidence, the chief points of difference being the stage of the proceeding at which each is available and the conse­quences resulting from deferring the motion to exclude. Thornhill v. Thornhill, 172 Va. 553, 2 S.E.2d 318, 319.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

A kid swallowed all the Scrabble letters. Now his poop shows more intelligence than a libertarian.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-05-26   16:46:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Pinguinite (#11)

Well, Nolu, with or without the 5th Amendment, I would consider that "coersion and motivation" by the everyday sense of the word, to plea guilty.

You are entitled to your opinion that a plea bargain is coercion. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. In the context of legal matters such as plea agreements, their opinion matters more than yours.

If you did away with plea bargains, you will still come to that time where you have to plead guilty or not guilty. You are free to knowingly and intelligently make either choice, and choose you must. Do away with plea bargains and explain how your situation has improved.

If you really believe you can beat the rap, plead not guilty.

If you believe a trial and conviction will likely result in a stiffer sentence, decide whatever you think is most likely to give you the best outcome. Or not, it's your choice.

A kid swallowed all the Scrabble letters. Now his poop shows more intelligence than a libertarian.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-05-26   16:48:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan (#14)

Your response is completely amoral, and your statement that the USSC disagrees with my opinion completely ignores my point about the USSC's opinion being related to the 5th Amendment, which I did not raise.

You apparently choose to believe that telling an innocent person that if they choose to got trial they could get 10 years in jail if convicted vs several months in jail if they plea guilty, somehow does NOT constitute coersion.

I don't know what bizarre world you come from, but on earth, in English, that is the epitome of coercion. As that point is apparently lost on you I suggest you stop reading law books and start reading ordinary English books.

Maybe I can spell it out for you this way: The legal system serves the people. It serves society. Society does NOT serve the legal system. The legal system is supposed to be part of the government that is of, by and for the people. And whenever the government, including the legal system, becomes destructive to the purpose of serving the people, it is the *moral* right of the people to alter or abolish it.

I used to think you were a lawyer, and you probably are by training. My opinion now is that you are likely a sitting judge. Whether federal, state or municipal, I couldn't speculate. It's pointless to ask and if true, you likely wouldn't answer. But it makes sense. It certainly explains your abundant access to case law material and, as demonstrated on this thread, your amoral attitude when it comes to the issue of innocent people being thrown in jail. The old saying that it's better that 10 guilty people go free than it is for 1 innocent person to be jailed carries no weight with you. Innocence or guilt does not matter. What's important to you is that the system do it's thing.

Quite sickening, if you ask me.

Whether I'm right or not, perhaps this attitude you demonstrate is prevalent among judges in the judicial system. I suppose it would be a source of pride for a judge to be as amoral as possible. All it requires is a complete lack of soul. In effect, to become a judge, one must surrender all sense of common concern for what is morally right and wrong, replacing that moral sense with rules and procedures set down by predecessors and those who have been appointed to higher positions in the religious order, all to serve the god of the courtroom. That anyone could think that serving this god is the fulfillment of a divine good in society, when there is such callous disregard for when innocent people are punished.....

Is that really the best you can do? Is that the best you can be, Nolu?

The entire legal system that, I suppose, you serve is a creation of *man* and man alone. Governments come and go, and one day, all the case law you swear allegiance to will be washed way. In our lifetime, perhaps not, and perhaps even unlikely. But the end will come for it, some way, some how, some day. In contrast, what won't wash away is morality. The true sense of right and wrong, the TRUE justice. That which was moral 5000 years ago is still moral today, and still will be 5000 years from now.

Good luck to you.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-05-26   21:03:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: nolu chan (#13)

The cause to claim insufficient evidence did not exist until Morales had already pleaded guilty and went to jail.

How is it possible for Morales to plead guilty to a case lacking in evidence? Like I said, were she my client, I would have advised her to enter a plea of not guilty. Let the opposing party do their job to prove their case against her. It is not Morales job to prove she is innocent. That is why she would plead not guilty. It is possible that somebody intimidated her or threatened her with blackmail unless she entered her plea to guilty. There are games being played with unsuspecting parties like this. That is why that attorney is supposed to be looking out for their client.

In some states Demurrers are not acceptable (such as in California courts). In such cases like Morales, the job of the attorney is not so much to argue the facts of the case but to argue the law and in Morales case it would be for lack of evidence. The applicable law would be referenced to the courts local rules as well as codes of civil procedure and criminal procedure in the matter of dismissing the case. Of course, it would not stop the matter from going to the appeals stage based on a procedural technicality.

goldilucky  posted on  2019-05-26   23:46:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: goldilucky (#16)

How is it possible for Morales to plead guilty to a case lacking in evidence?

Because the opportunity to plea often comes before formal lab testing is done on the evidence. Labs are usually so backlogged in testing for drugs that they like to proceed with the court formalities before the state even has evidence.

On your suggestion that a defendant pleads not guilty, it can mean they remain in jail until the trial, which in of itself is a hardship, often extreme in the case of parent of a young child. So yes, pleading not guilty is, in theory, the thing to do, but in practice, quite often not even close to being in the best interest of the accused, even when they are innocent.

But don't worry. There never any coersion involved with plea offers because the USSC decreed it so.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-05-27   2:28:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Pinguinite (#17)

Depending on the case itself on how serious it is, the judge could do one or two things, 1) Issue an ROR -release on their own recognizance, or (2) the defendant awaits their time in jail waiting for a trial to happen. This can be often lengthy due to court dockets. It is also an inconvenience, depending on the case, to have Morales sit in jail, while they could be released and await till their trial begins. The judge could issue a warning to Morales to complete a community service or drug assessment program which would permit the courts to expunge this off their record. If the defendant was a juvenile, in most cases it would be expunged off their record as they are minors.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/jn

goldilucky  posted on  2019-05-27   14:31:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com