Some of you--my faithful readers!--may remember that almost exactly a year ago I was up to my ears helping defend a man accused of murder. I can't believe it has been a year--it went so quickly!
Oh, the case had all of the drama of a movie, or something you'd see on TV. You may remember from my earlier posts that although we did not get the defendant acquitted, the jury was hung 10-2 in favor of acquittal. I think a very telling thing about that trial was that post-trial, the judge presiding over the case dropped the bail from $750,000 to $30,000, and waived any travel restrictions against the defendant. He was literally free to travel to any state or country he chose.
Now, the defendant has gotten on with his life. Without getting into too many personal details, let's just say that he and his wife are reunited again after his long incarceration, and they are happier then ever. I feel GREAT having played a role in helping end his two-year incarceration over a crime the evidence shows he did not commit.
Nevertheless, the District Attorney has neither refused to drop the charges, nor has she or her office pursued a retrial. This was a cold-case to begin with (1992!), and the DA has a reputation for trying to clean up old cases. However, it is unconscionable to me that in light of the DNA evidence, in light of all the testimony, that the DA should even consider retrying this particular defendant.
Maybe it is time to let this case become history--or else the DA needs a new theory on who actually committed the murder.
Showing posts with label bail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bail. Show all posts
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Politics v Justice
Well, election season is on us, and the good folks of Ohio may well be the people to decide for the entire country whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is President. I'm not going to dedicate time here tonight to argue whether the Electoral College is still the best plan. Instead, I will spend a few minutes talking about when politics affect legal decisions.
Last month I was deeply involved in a murder trial. If you read some of my posts, you know that it ended in a hung jury, 10-2 in favor of acquittal. As of yet no decision has been made as to whether or not the defendant in this case will be re-tried. He is out on a much smaller bond, but his future is still in limbo. Will he have to defend himself again? Should he even have to?
This case has always been political in nature. The victim was the Superintendent of schools in a smallish town, that had seen its share of racial division and corruption. He was an outsider that had been brought in to "clean up" the town, and also implement Brown vs Board of Education, which was long overdue. He had his run-ins with the School Board, and they wanted him gone. He ended up dead less than 24 hrs before a controversial meeting was to take place,
The defendant, a 17 year old high school student at the time, had no connection to the victim, the Board, or even the community. His family had recently relocated there. Neither he, nor his parents, were part of these controversies. Yet, due to some circumstantial evidence that placed him near the scene of the crime at approximately the same time as the murder, he became a person of interest. He was investigated, and dropped as a suspect, twenty years ago.
The problem is that now there is a D.A. that is aggressively trying to clean up cold-cases. The defendant was asked to give a DNA sample, which he did. The State got an arrest warrant on the strength of a "DNA match." This so-called match not only proved later to not be a match, it tended to show that the defendant could NOT have been the killer.
Nevertheless, the D.A. pursued this case with a fervor. She fought to make sure the defendant's bail was unattainable ($1M), and insisted in taking this matter to trial even when the lab that suggested there could be a match came back with a report saying there was not one.
Why would someone do this? Well, it may just be a coincidence, but the D.A.'s name has made a lot of headlines with her high-profile prosecution of this and other cases. Oh, and she is up for re-election in a couple weeks.
Since the hung-jury, she has kept silent about the case, and has let the Assistant D.A. who was the lead here take all the criticism. As for whether or not the Defendant would be re-tried? No word. No one is expecting anything until after the election. If her challenger wins, everyone expects the case will be dropped. If she wins, she may re-try it? Who knows?
The sad thing is that the victim's family is no closer to justice than they were twenty years ago. The defendant--a real person, with a wife, with hopes for a family, with hopes for regaining his life--sits and waits. This is not justice, and justice should never have to be put on hold due to someone's political aspirations.
Last month I was deeply involved in a murder trial. If you read some of my posts, you know that it ended in a hung jury, 10-2 in favor of acquittal. As of yet no decision has been made as to whether or not the defendant in this case will be re-tried. He is out on a much smaller bond, but his future is still in limbo. Will he have to defend himself again? Should he even have to?
This case has always been political in nature. The victim was the Superintendent of schools in a smallish town, that had seen its share of racial division and corruption. He was an outsider that had been brought in to "clean up" the town, and also implement Brown vs Board of Education, which was long overdue. He had his run-ins with the School Board, and they wanted him gone. He ended up dead less than 24 hrs before a controversial meeting was to take place,
The defendant, a 17 year old high school student at the time, had no connection to the victim, the Board, or even the community. His family had recently relocated there. Neither he, nor his parents, were part of these controversies. Yet, due to some circumstantial evidence that placed him near the scene of the crime at approximately the same time as the murder, he became a person of interest. He was investigated, and dropped as a suspect, twenty years ago.
The problem is that now there is a D.A. that is aggressively trying to clean up cold-cases. The defendant was asked to give a DNA sample, which he did. The State got an arrest warrant on the strength of a "DNA match." This so-called match not only proved later to not be a match, it tended to show that the defendant could NOT have been the killer.
Nevertheless, the D.A. pursued this case with a fervor. She fought to make sure the defendant's bail was unattainable ($1M), and insisted in taking this matter to trial even when the lab that suggested there could be a match came back with a report saying there was not one.
Why would someone do this? Well, it may just be a coincidence, but the D.A.'s name has made a lot of headlines with her high-profile prosecution of this and other cases. Oh, and she is up for re-election in a couple weeks.
Since the hung-jury, she has kept silent about the case, and has let the Assistant D.A. who was the lead here take all the criticism. As for whether or not the Defendant would be re-tried? No word. No one is expecting anything until after the election. If her challenger wins, everyone expects the case will be dropped. If she wins, she may re-try it? Who knows?
The sad thing is that the victim's family is no closer to justice than they were twenty years ago. The defendant--a real person, with a wife, with hopes for a family, with hopes for regaining his life--sits and waits. This is not justice, and justice should never have to be put on hold due to someone's political aspirations.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Sometimes It Takes More Than Money to Make Bail
Many people are familiar with the basic idea of making bail. You can put the entire amount up yourself or you can put approximately 10% down and a bail bondsman will cover the other 90%. The upside of putting the money down yourself is that except for some fees, you'll get most of it back. When you pay a bail bondsman they keep that 10% as their fee. Note these fees may vary somewhat based on your jurisdiction.
What many people don't realize is that the governmental body (police, sheriff) holding the prisoner may have their own set of rules regarding that prisoner's release. In a recent case that I was involved in, the judge had required a $30,000 bond. After the fees were paid to the bail bondsman, we expected the prisoner would be let go. However, that did not happen. The sheriff in this case made additional demands. Specifically they required that they people putting up the bond also provide deeds to their homes, as well as proof of equity. Further, the sheriff did not declare this requirement until after the money had been put up and when it was too late in the day to go get the required documentation.
It was after 5:00. The judge in this case had gone home, and many other governmental offices and banks had closed. Fortunately, the media had not gone home for the day. Through phone calls from both local and national media, suddenly brought a change of tune from this particular sheriff.
The moral of the story is: don't assume this will be an easy process. Make sure you find out in advance exactly what will be required, especially in high profile cases. There may be people with their own agendas.
What many people don't realize is that the governmental body (police, sheriff) holding the prisoner may have their own set of rules regarding that prisoner's release. In a recent case that I was involved in, the judge had required a $30,000 bond. After the fees were paid to the bail bondsman, we expected the prisoner would be let go. However, that did not happen. The sheriff in this case made additional demands. Specifically they required that they people putting up the bond also provide deeds to their homes, as well as proof of equity. Further, the sheriff did not declare this requirement until after the money had been put up and when it was too late in the day to go get the required documentation.
It was after 5:00. The judge in this case had gone home, and many other governmental offices and banks had closed. Fortunately, the media had not gone home for the day. Through phone calls from both local and national media, suddenly brought a change of tune from this particular sheriff.
The moral of the story is: don't assume this will be an easy process. Make sure you find out in advance exactly what will be required, especially in high profile cases. There may be people with their own agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)