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

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly


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: 1304
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#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   Untrace   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

nolu chan  posted on  2019-05-23   17:14:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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.

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


Replies to Comment # 8.

#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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

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