Man who shot Alzheimer’s sufferer won’t be charged

[TR675]

I had a long conversation with SouthNarc today and this case came up. It is one I had never heard of before.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz2v8nVvkzR

The headline may be incorrect in that she didn't die immediately. Apparently, she lived seven months in a vegetative state (shot in the neck with brain damage). One report stated that her family finally took her off life support.

That case was big news around here when the acquittal came down. It is a pretty appalling case.

When I was a kid a neighbor spotted some miscreant vandalizing his car at night. Neighbor shot and killed the miscreant. The miscreant was, IIRC, just up to some dingus teenage hijinks. This was in what was at the time a very safe, upper middle class suburb, and by that I mean the entire development of 40,000 people were pretty uniformly white and upper middle class, with few or no surrounding areas with higher crime rates. Violent crime was nil, most other crimes were nil as well. Unfortunately for the miscreant, vandalizing a car is considered "criminal mischief", he was doing it at night, and therefore the neighbor's actions possibly fell under that statute. I don't believe the neighbor was ever even charged with a crime. Maybe he should have been.

I'm not sure how I would rewrite this statute, but I'm not a fan of it as written. Like Tam alluded earlier, there is a widespread belief in Texas that you can up and shoot someone for messing with your car. That's not the case, but people don't bother to read and understand the statute.

[Chuck Haggard]

I had a long conversation with SouthNarc today and this case came up. It is one I had never heard of before.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz2v8nVvkzR

The headline may be incorrect in that she didn't die immediately. Apparently, she lived seven months in a vegetative state (shot in the neck with brain damage). One report stated that her family finally took her off life support.

That one is a stunning miscarriage of justice. I am truly appalled.

[TR675]

How's that? The defense doesn't put up a case at the grand jury thus there is no defense lawyer to pay.

Defense counsel often gets hired after the arrest. They can put in a lot of time doing an investigation of the case pre-GJ. In Texas the prosecutor sometimes allows or asks the defendant to testify. The defense attorney can't go in with the defendant, but ought to spend a lot of time prepping them. Sometimes they can also present a "packet" to the GJ with their side of events and evidence.

So yes, although the defense can't put on their case in front of the GJ there is still a lot for them to do before the hearing, and the legal bills can be substantial.

[jlw]

Defense counsel often gets hired after the arrest. They can put in a lot of time doing an investigation of the case pre-GJ. In Texas the prosecutor sometimes allows or asks the defendant to testify. The defense attorney can't go in with the defendant, but ought to spend a lot of time prepping them. Sometimes they can also present a "packet" to the GJ with their side of events and evidence.

So yes, although the defense can't put on their case in front of the GJ there is still a lot for them to do before the hearing, and the legal bills can be substantial.

In text this will probably come across more harshly than intended, but you are completely missing the point, and you are accusing people of cowardice while doing so.

Cases can go before a grand jury without there having been an arrest. If the grand jury no bills, then there is never an arrest. This method actually avoids arbitrariness and political prosecutions.

[TR675]

jlw, are you confusing this post:

Right-o. Prosecutors will sometimes use grand juries as political cover. Take a weak case that has some political ramifications to the GJ, let the jurors know that the case is weak, and...no-bill with plausible deniability of fault. I've seen this happen in, among others, a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse where the case was weak and the supposed victim not plausible. In that case the detective testified that he didn't believe the victim. Grand jury no-billed and the DA didn't have to answer questions about not prosecuting the case in the next election.

With this one?

downside with that is the "defendant" just tossed a dump truck load of cash into some lawyer's pocket, for no good reason. that kind of action on the case of prosecutors raises my ire, I just don't see a legal means of restitution to the "defendant" for such a dubious act of judicial cowardice.

I'm not accusing anyone of cowardice. Political expediency maybe. The DA I worked for wasn't a coward at all, but he knew what was good for him. There are also other reasons, valid ones, to let a grand jury decide if a weak case should lead to an indictment or not. That is one of the reasons they're there...

In text this will probably come across more harshly than intended, but you are completely missing the point, and you are accusing people of cowardice while doing so.

Cases can go before a grand jury without there having been an arrest. If the grand jury no bills, then there is never an arrest. This method actually avoids arbitrariness and political prosecutions.

I was actually agreeing with your statement but specifically talking about cases I had witnessed that had resulted in arrest but later no-billed. If I completely missed your point it might be because the post that I was responding to wasn't clear on that.... Either way, it sounds like we're giving two different reasons supporting the same principle, unless I'm misunderstanding you again.

[jlw]

jlw, are you confusing this post:



With this one?



I'm not accusing anyone of cowardice. Political expediency maybe. The DA I worked for wasn't a coward at all, but he knew what was good for him. There are also other reasons, valid ones, to let a grand jury decide if a weak case should lead to an indictment or not. That is one of the reasons they're there...



I was actually agreeing with your statement but specifically talking about cases I had witnessed that had resulted in arrest but later no-billed. If I completely missed your point it might be because the post that I was responding to wasn't clear on that.... Either way, it sounds like we're giving two different reasons supporting the same principle, unless I'm misunderstanding you again.

My very, very humble apologies. It was someone else that used the "cowardice" term.

[TR675]

No worries. Thank you for the clarification.

[jlw]

No worries. Thank you for the clarification.

I probably shouldn't use a keyboard without also using my glasses...

[TR675]

My recent Tapatalk adventure in frustration showed me that I shouldn't use a smartphone ever, so believe me I understand .

[jlw]

My recent Tapatalk adventure in frustration showed me that I shouldn't use a smartphone ever, so believe me I understand .

Try sending out an emergency alert via smart phone and then seeing what auto correct did to it.