Pussy Riot Supports Cecily McMillan

From the Guardian:

A majority of the jurors who this week convicted an Occupy Wall Street activist of assaulting a New York police officer have asked the judge in her case to not send her to prison.

Cecily McMillan was on Monday found guilty of deliberately elbowing officer Grantley Bovell in the face, as he led her out of a protest in March 2012. She was convicted of second-degree assault, a felony, and faces up to seven years in prison. She was denied bail and is being detained at Riker’s Island jail.

However, nine of the 12 jurors who unanimously reached the verdict have since taken the unusual step of writing to Judge Ronald Zweibel to request that he not give her a prison sentence on 19 May…

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that several jurors, who were barred from researching the trial while it was happening, were shocked to discover that McMillan could receive a substantial prison term when they searched for details online, minutes after being dismissed…

For the record, I grew up in a physically violent family, and it took me years to break the habit of taking a swing at anyone who approached me from behind. And that was just for tapping me on the shoulder.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

83 replies
  1. 1
    some guy says:

    Billmon is too funny. Bundy is a GOP volk hero

  2. 2
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    Wait now, the jury was instructed to reach a verdict without knowing what the penalty could be? Without being allowed to find out in advance of deliberations? How can that even be?

    Omnes, Burns, other legal types — is this normal? I have to say, I am really shocked.

  3. 3
    dedc79 says:

    I did a criminal justice clinic in law school and defended someone who was charged with assaulting a security guard who was an off-duty police officer. The security guard had grabbed my client’s daughter, who was 8 months pregnant, and my client, in trying to pull her daughter away out of concern for her safety, came into contact with the guard. The legal standard for such cases makes it nearly impossible for a defendant who has put their hands on an officer to avoid conviction. I recall the judge reading his ruling from the bench and noting that while he was “deeply troubled” by the conduct of the officer that lead to the confrontation with the defendant, he had no choice but to find the defendant, my client, guilty. My supervisor on the case argued that if the judge was “deeply troubled” then he should not find the defendant guilty, but it fell on deaf ears.

  4. 4

    To paraphrase Mr. Cube, “Fuck the justice system.”

  5. 5
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Billmon makes a pretty good point.

    Obviously, Occupy is much more dangerous to the 1% than the teahadis.

  6. 6
    kindness says:

    Mmmm. Not sure what to think of the ‘protest movement’ in Russia. The story Rolling Stone had on the Russian opposition movement was a bit morose. It implied many old hands of the movement had given up after the Secret Police went after them. I mean, I don’t blame them all that much. As bad as the Reagan & dumbya years were it wasn’t near what the Russian opposition faces. It was the martyr syndrome that was implied about the Pussie Riot women, particularly the two that the west knows, that I am not comfortable with. Don’t need to die to make a point. Similarly, I sure would like there to be a different way to get the Occupy woman not to have to serve that time. It could be any of us but I’m sure glad it ain’t me.

  7. 7
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: The issue of guilt or innocence is totally separate from the issue of what the punishment should be.

    Frankly, it’s bullshit that she was convicted…she feels someone feeling her up and she reacts? What else was she supposed to do? Lie back and enjoy it?

  8. 8
    Citizen_X says:

    @dedc79: When did cops become such untouchably pure royalty? Has it always been like this?

  9. 9
    AxelFoley says:

    I don’t think most guys would mind if pussy started rioting all over America.

  10. 10
    AxelFoley says:

    @Citizen_X:

    @dedc79: When did cops become such untouchably pure royalty? Has it always been like this?

    For black folks, yes. White folks are now dealing with what black folks have been dealing with for years.

  11. 11
    Jeffro says:

    Seven YEARS in prison, potentially? How is that even a possibility?

  12. 12
    dedc79 says:

    @Citizen_X: not sure of the history of how the lenient standard came to be. In this instance the prosecutor pursued the case as a simple assault, which meant it was a misdemeanor bench trial (judge not jury) but which also still allowed the prosecutor to use the far easier standard for an assault on a police officer.

    The whole experience was quite an eye opener.

  13. 13
    srv says:

    @Citizen_X: since Reagan democrats were tough on crime.

  14. 14
    Culture of Truth says:

    Wait now, the jury was instructed to reach a verdict without knowing what the penalty could be? Without being allowed to find out in advance of deliberations?

    That’s standard and appropriate. It’s not their job to determine someone’s punishment, but what happened, factually.

    I disagree (with some) that we live a ‘surveillance state’ but we increasingly live, if not in a police state, in a state that favors the police, in many ways.

  15. 15
    Hobbes says:

    So some of the jurors were shocked to discover that being convicted of assaulting a New York police officer could result in a substantial prison term.
    It’s a pity that having a jury almost too stupid to breathe isn’t grounds for appeal.

  16. 16
    Mnemosyne says:

    @AxelFoley:

    White folks are now dealing with what black folks have been dealing with for years.

    Yep. And I bet what’s freaked the jury out is that it’s a nice, white, upper-class college student who’ll be going to prison for 7 years. If she was a black, working-class high school dropout, there wouldn’t be any letters written begging for mercy from the judge.

  17. 17
    Another Holocene Human says:

    OT: Surprised nobody on this blog is talking about the latest RW Wurlitzer hitparade – the call to depose Eric Shinseki. He really angered the blood of the reactionary coots at the American Legion by stating that he “serves at the pleasure of the President”.

    Nice Polite Republicans was repeating all the latest derp from GOP “leaders” in the House without comment more or less. I don’t usually turn into NPR but the music on the radio around here sucks and I needed a break from Southern soft rock.

  18. 18
    LAC says:

    Ok so the cop was feeling her up. I mean. No doubt. She was being felt up.. The cop was feeling her booby. He was squeezing it and going ” oh yeah booby time! “. It was a lingering booby time.
    Miss ” I don’t remember anything afterwards”. No I don’t think 7 years. But c’mon. …

  19. 19
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Hobbes: If it’s a felony isn’t prison time kind of baked in the cake? Although, the jury may really have been given little choice by the judge following instructions.

  20. 20
    TrexPushups says:

    @LAC:

    Did you see the video of her having a seizure afterwards? That certainly seems like something that could lead to a fuzzy memory.

  21. 21
    BBA says:

    The maximum sentence is 7 years. The minimum sentence is 2 years, which is still obscene, but after time served it’s not a whole lot. But from how this judge has behaved during this case, he’s likely to sentence her to the maximum, pour encourager les autres.

  22. 22
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LAC: Scroll down in this and take a look at the bruise on her breast. I think if someone grabs you that hard, you react instinctively.

  23. 23
    Mike G says:

    Jury nullification. Every juror should know it. Fuck the judge’s instructions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    Judges and lawyers hate it, which is all the more reason to get familiar with it. Mentioning it is a good way to get out of jury duty if you’re so inclined.

  24. 24
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    FWIW there are quite a few issues to fight on appeal. The judge kept a lot of evidence out of the trial – evidence of the officer’s violent history which should have come in as impeachment evidence, evidence of the general atmosphere of violence in the park that night which could have put McMillan’s actions in a different context, and so on…

  25. 25
    jl says:

    At least least they are looking for the two goons, but note the reaction of the feds: hide.

    BLM Staffer Confronted By Armed Men On Utah Highway

    ” After two armed men threatened a Bureau of Land Management wrangler on Tuesday in western Utah, workers are removing BLM logos from their vehicles to help avoid additional incidents, the Salt Lake Tribune reported on Thursday.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....ation-utah

  26. 26
    Belafon says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s done. Now, this is definitely an argument against required minimum sentencing. But guilt or innocence is supposed to be decided separate from the punishment.

  27. 27
    Richard Shindledecker says:

    Judges and ADAs are paid to let cops lie – what else is old? Cops lie under oath – we all know that – and the US criminal justice system is a joke.

  28. 28
    Mnemosyne says:

    @jl:

    I can’t really blame the feds, though — no one wants to end up like those USDA inspectors who pissed off a sausage maker.

    BLM employees should not be expected to put their lives at risk. They’re not law enforcement.

  29. 29
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Also, wasn’t the defense barred from using a videotape as evidence, but the prosecution was allowed to use stills from that same videotape? It seems very weird that only the prosecution was allowed to use a specific piece of evidence.

  30. 30
    jl says:

    @Mike G: Thanks for the link. I found this passaget interesting, though not sure how relevant it is to jury nullification:

    ” Standard jury trial practice in the United States during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case Stettinius v. U.S., in which it was held that “The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions.”[16] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in limine, to exclude evidence, on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury.[citation needed] “

  31. 31
    MikeJ says:

    @jl:

    workers are removing BLM logos from their vehicles to help avoid additional incidents

    And now we hear about the ominous black SUVs full of gubbmint men.

  32. 32
    jl says:

    @Mnemosyne: Given the realities of working out in the boondocks, you are probably right. Still, this is one of the consequences of having double standards in the application of the law. Or of having one party (GOP) cheering on thugs in a way that the other would never dream of.

  33. 33
    gene108 says:

    @Jeffro:

    Seven YEARS in prison, potentially? How is that even a possibility?

    Criminal Justice system is pretty heavily stacked against the defendant or another way to look at it, the job of the justice system is to punish “wrong doers” rather than provide actual “justice”, therefore people caught up in it really need a good lawyer or they get stuck in the system in a bad way.

    The power of the state is very strong, which is why half of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to limiting the police power of the state.

  34. 34
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: Shit, I had forgotten about that. I would argue that that is reversible error right there. The prosecution used stills and the defense wasn’t allowed to show the full tape to establish context.

  35. 35
    Belafon says:

    @jl: Since the FBI is getting involved in Bundy, I wouldn’t be surprised if they get involved in this one as well.

  36. 36
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @jl: The jury is there solely as the finder of fact. The judge instructs the jury on the applicable legal standards (i.e, if you find that the defendant 1. intentionally, struck, 3. a law enforcement officer, the defendant is guilty of the such and such and offense) and then sends the jury out to make the set of factual determinations.

  37. 37
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @gene108:

    The power of the state is very strong, which is why half of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to limiting the police power of the state.

    Does anyone remember me getting all exercised about Fourth Amendment rights? This is why.

  38. 38
    Violet says:

    @Mike G:

    Jury nullification. Every juror should know it. Fuck the judge’s instructions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    Judges and lawyers hate it, which is all the more reason to get familiar with it. Mentioning it is a good way to get out of jury duty if you’re so inclined.

    When would one mention it? I actually have jury duty coming up fairly soon. Not looking forward to it, especially since I’m now the caregiver for my dad and he won’t be able to make his surgery follow up appointments if I’m not available. Well, we can probably get someone to drive him, but since going to the doctor’s appointment involves much more than just driving–there’s listening and asking questions and participating in the appointment to make sure my dad has all his questions answered and understands his follow up care–I’m nervous I will get picked for a jury on some long trial. I won’t skip out on it but also hope I won’t get picked.

  39. 39
    JoyfulA says:

    @Citizen_X: Governor Corbett has just signed a bill instituting a 10-year prison term for wounding or killing a police dog.

  40. 40
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Violet: There is a process before trial called voir dire where a potential panel of jurors is asked questions by the lawyers for each side. The lawyers can challenge any number of jurors for cause and a certain number (varies by jurisdiction) just because. I tend to ask about previous involvement with the legal system, types of books they read, TV shows they watch, movies. I try to get an understanding of how they view the legal process and whether it benefits me or the other side for them to be on the jury. It’s a fucking crap shoot.

    BTW if you said you believed in nullification, the lawyers or the judges would ask some follow-on questions. The judge especially. They know people try to use tricks to get out of jury duty.

  41. 41
    JoyfulA says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, my husband, as a former public defender, thought he’d be immediately told to go home from jury duty, but he was instead immediately assigned to a jury.

  42. 42
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @JoyfulA: I am surprised at that. Lawyers are often tossed. It is assumed that they will have too much influence on the jury.

  43. 43
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: The only time I went for jury duty and got on a panel they started asking us questions about whether or not we or family members had been sexually assaulted or had some experience related to sexual assault. It was seriously awkward. Plenty of women–and probably men–do not want to stand up in a jury room with a hundred people in the room and announce they have personal experience with sexual assault. Before they got too far along with that question they took a recess and then let us all go. That’s my experience with voir dire.

    Not a very good experience. I’d think with a sensitive subject like sexual assault they wouldn’t make people raise their hands if they’ve been sexually assaulted. How the hell did they think they’d get any kind of accurate answers from people by doing that? It was intimidating. During the recess I chatted with a few of my fellow panel members and we were all taken aback by that question.

  44. 44
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Violet: It is hard to do on sensitive subjects. The information is important. For example, my s-i-l would vote to convict anyone indicted for such an offense. She should not be on such a jury. How do you ask the questions and get the information without also causing the juror to think you are an ass and being biased against you personally before the trial even starts.

  45. 45
    Mike G says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    The jury is there solely as the finder of fact. The judge instructs the jury on the applicable legal standards

    How very patronizing and paternalistic (the system that is, I don’t know if this is your personal view of how it should be). The cops-lawyers-court system wants well-behaved little jurors who will only work with the blinders put on them. If the law is BS, if the situation is BS, the jury should choose not guilty regardless of what narrow little finding-of-fact parameters the court authoritarians tell them to look at. It’s about seeking justice, instead of being a willing cog in a giant cops-courts-prison money-making machine that often has little relationship to justice.

  46. 46
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mike G: Sure, let the jury hear about the evidence found in the defendant’s house in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Once they have heard it, they will certainly ignore it once the judge rules that the defendant’s rights were violated and the evidence is excluded. It works both ways.

  47. 47
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    Ah, the American jury. Let’s think about how many people in NYC skipped out on their jury duty before this particular group of jurors were selected.

  48. 48
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: The jurors could be informed that the subject could be sensitive and be allowed to speak to the judge or lawyers (or whoever) in private rather than having to stand up in the crowded courtroom when they say, “Stand up if you have personal experience with sexual assault.” If there’s a better way to get an inaccurate assessment of a panel’s background with that issue I can’t imagine what it would be.

  49. 49
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @pseudonymous in nc: FWIW, I think most juries try to do a good job and they get it right far, far more often than they get it wrong – even when it goes against me. I think this jury got it wrong, but I also think that it was do do errors by the judge and the appellate system will catch and fix it.

  50. 50
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Violet: I also watch potential jurors during the questioning – the voir part of voir dire – if someone seems uncomfortable. I follow up. It does sound like the voir dire in your case was conducted poorly.

  51. 51
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m not sure how the lawyers could have been watching all of us. I couldn’t even see the lawyers. I could see a portion of the defendant (he was obscured from view). There were 100 of us on the panel and I was near the back in the room. They asked a few other questions then the one I mentioned, which left many of us uncomfortable. Then we had the recess. I in no way felt they had any sense of who I was. Maybe if it had continued they would have had a better idea.

  52. 52
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Violet: I have never had a 100 person panel. Everywhere that I have been has had a panel of 20 to get a 12 person jury.

  53. 53
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: It was 100. They told us how many it was. Large courtroom. At least ten rows of bench seats, maybe twelve, with an aisle in the middle. It was an old courtroom in an old part of the courthouse. None of the panels being called were as small as 20. More like 50.

  54. 54
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Violet: I really don’t know how I would conduct voir dire in those circs. I have been lucky enough to be in courts where I could actually have a bit of a conversation with the jurors.

  55. 55
    Eric U. says:

    @Violet: since I was a victim of sexual assault, this actually happened to me. Federal court, they asked if you or anyone close to you had been a victim of sexual assault, and then if you said yes you were asked to talk to the judge and lawyers at the bench. I can’t imagine a judge that would make you say something that sensitive in front of the whole court. And they always ask if anyone close to you was a victim, so that is an out.

    On that jury, half the room left because they or a close relative worked at a jail. This is when I got the first inkling that pennsyltucky only has jobs at Penn State and prisons, and the rest of the people are living off of the government.

  56. 56
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: It was my only experience even making it to the panel. I don’t know if that’s unusual or normal. It felt pretty impersonal and I could not imagine how the lawyers for either side could have made an educated assessment of the jurors. I felt bad for the defendant.

  57. 57
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    : FWIW, I think most juries try to do a good job and they get it right far, far more often than they get it wrong – even when it goes against me.

    Oh, I’m not casting aspersions on the individual jurors. My major grouse at the US criminal justice system is that the flipside of the first amendment (and thus relatively little sub judice power) is that you get unrepresentative juries, partly because lots of people skip jury duty and partly because of the selection process. I’m honestly not a free speech absolutist for that reason. I think the Anglosphere criminal justice system works better with heavy restrictions on reporting ongoing cases, not much wriggle room to get out of being on a jury, and not much power for either side to shape the composition of the jury.

  58. 58
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Violet:

    IIRC, one of the general questions they ask at some point is if people have caregiver duties, and you can raise your hand at that point. If you’ve otherwise been polite and cooperative up to that point, you’ll probably be able to ask to be excused on that basis. No lawyer wants a jury member who’s constantly looking at her watch through the whole trial and trying to figure out her schedule instead of listening to the evidence.

    Also, the last jury I was on (as the 2nd alternate) only heard the case in the afternoons, so I was at work in the morning and went to the trial in the afternoon for about a week. So it’s possible that it may not be a full day commitment.

  59. 59
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Violet: The experience is seldom great for anyone other than trial lawyers who are good at it. Being involved in surgery tends to suck as well. Unless you are the surgeon.

  60. 60
    Mnemosyne says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    not much wriggle room to get out of being on a jury

    It’s tricky, though, because some people have crappy jobs that will fire them if they get on a jury. (They’re not supposed to, but they’ll say it was “absenteeism” or another bullshit excuse.) When I was working as a temp, I couldn’t be on jury duty, because I would lose the assignment I was on and had no idea when I might get another one. People who have constantly changing shifts like the ones they have at Wal-Mart could end up screwed. Etc.

    Either jury pay would need to be a LOT higher (right now, LA County pays $15 per day), or employers would have to be required to pay for unlimited jury duty, no exceptions.

  61. 61
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: Firing people for absenteeism due to jury duty is illegal. The person will win in a lawsuit, even in a right to work state.

  62. 62
    Calouste says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    So? You’ll fire them, you just don’t say it’s because of the jury duty. Or you fire them the day they come back, just to make sure your other indentured servants, ahem, employees, don’t get any funny ideas.

  63. 63
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    What minimum wage worker can afford to hire a lawyer to sue? And who’s going to hire a known troublemaker even if their lawsuit is successful?

    Marginal people live on the margins, and they can’t afford to sue.

  64. 64
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Calouste: Well, fuck it. Let’s just give up. Yeah, those things are problems. But people also have remedies. Someone fires you for jury duty, file a fucking lawsuit. There are attorneys who would love to take the case. Or you could just whine about how the system is fucked up.

  65. 65
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: Have you ever heard of a contingency fee?

    ETA: I am not calling the system perfect, but, quickly, design me a better one.

  66. 66
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I’d start with paying people more than $15 a day to be on a jury, plus requiring all employers to pay for unlimited jury service. And if you think that’s politically impossible, why would you think protecting people from being fired is easy?

  67. 67
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    And if you think that’s politically impossible, why would you think protecting people from being fired is easy?

    Quoi?

  68. 68
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You asked for my proposed solutions, and I gave them to you. What’s your beef with them?

  69. 69
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: I agree on increasing the amount of jury pay, but the rest is no different from the current law that firing someone for jury duty is illegal.

  70. 70
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    My job only offers 10 days of jury duty, and that’s pretty generous around here. Some companies offer zero days of paid jury duty, and it’s perfectly legal for them to do that.

    How is that the same as saying that companies should have to pay for unlimited jury service?

  71. 71
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: @Mnemosyne: Also I asked you to design a better system, not to come up with marginal improvements on the current system. Lots of us are working on the marginal improvement thing every day of our lives. if you want to impress me, give me something new.

  72. 72
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Dude, you’ve been out of the working world too long if you think that making private employers do their fair share is not something new.

  73. 73
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: Sorry, I decline to participate your late night pick a fight thing.

  74. 74
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Uh-huh. I saw you in the thread above with Yutsy. I’m starting to think that this late-night picking a fight is not exactly one-sided, my dear.

  75. 75
    Ripley says:

    …if you want to impress me, give me something new.

    The first thing we do…

  76. 76
    Paul in KY says:

    Yeah, conviction on Felony Assault of a Police Officer never carries any time…

    I hope she doesn’t serve any, but those jurors were nuts if they thought being convicted of that was no biggie.

  77. 77
    Paul in KY says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I think (but do not know) that the prosecution would have said that she knew the police was there arresting people like her & she should have assumed that anyone laying hands on her was a police oficer.

  78. 78
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hobbes: My sentiments exactly.

  79. 79
    LAC says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I am sorry that my comment came off that way. I do not doubt she has a bruise, but the way it has been described is something out of really bad porn I don’t think he was copping a feel, that’s all.

  80. 80
    Eric U. says:

    our locality pays $9 a day for jury duty. Strangely enough, all the restaurants within walking distance of the courthouse charge just a little more than that for lunch. I assume that when the pay was established, $9 a day was what a laborer was paid for a day. That really wasn’t that long ago. They call way too many people for selection now, 15 years ago when I was called it actually was comfortable to be in the room, now it’s just barely big enough to hold everyone. It should cost the state what it’s worth one way or another. Or if it’s a civil suit, the litigants should pay. There was one suit, which I would have gotten off of by saying I couldn’t be fair, that was going to last forever because there were so many parties to the suit. And a majority of the people sitting in the jury selection pool couldn’t afford to be on that jury.

  81. 81
    The Ancient Randonneur says:

    Maybe some well armed Black Panthers running security for them would have saved a lot of trouble?

  82. 82
    Julie says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Does this differ state to state? Or when there’s a minimum sentencing requirement attached to one of the charges? I ask because, during the one time I’ve served on a jury, I recall being advised by the judge what the sentencing implications were of finding the defendant guilty of a lesser charge versus a more serious charge.

    For context, it was an armed robbery trial. The evidence that the guy had probably done it was pretty clear from the outset, what was at issue was whether the gun had actually been loaded or not. If it had been and we found on the greater charge, the minimum sentence was a lot longer.

  83. 83
    JoyfulA says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I was shocked, and so was he. Of course, he kept the trial going for an extra couple of days while he explained to the jury a castle doctrine theory (that Pennsylvania didn’t have) as it might have applied to this attempted murder accusation but didn’t, and so forth.

Comments are closed.