• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Anything new with Jesus Gonzales case?

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Oh that's right, I forgot you are the kind of person who believes you should wait until 2 people are beating you mercilessly before you actually pull your gun.
For the benefit of anyone who is paying attention... THIS is a strawman argument...

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of assault?

Assault:

A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened.
Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.Compare battery.

Perhaps you do not understand the burden of an imminent threat to your life before you may take the life of another or use force which is likely to do so against another.
 
Last edited:

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
It appears he was convicted on lesser charges and taken into custody immediately.

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/132744583.html

He made no statements to the police and did not testify in his defense. That is not much for the jury to go on other than what the one guy remembered (not much) and what the police said. The jury didn't hear Jesus's side of the story and I wonder why not.
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
I am very sad.

I was very surprised at the very short "defense" put up.

I am glad that the conviction is "of a lesser charge" (as posted earlier) if that holds to be true.

Now we wait for more info......arrrrgh
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
For those interested I did a little research on the crimes and their penalties.

On the more serious charge, first degree reckless homicide, it is a Class B felony.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2011/940/940.02.html

According to this law firm site the penalties are:

For a Class B Felony, the penalty is imprisonment up to 60 years; however, for a repeat offender the term of imprisonment may increase up to 2 years with prior misdemeanor convictions, and up to 6 years with a prior felony conviction.

http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/felony.asp

First degree reckless injury is a Class D felony

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2011/940/940.23.html

According the the same law firm site the penalty is:

For a Class D Felony, the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to 25 years, or both; however, for a repeat offender, the term of imprisonment may increase up to 2 years with prior misdemeanor convictions, and up to 6 years with a prior felony conviction.


These may be lesser charges but the penalties are quite severe.

EDIT: Here is a link to Wisconsin Code Chapter 939 which confirms what I posted above.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939.pdf
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
He must have either had a lousy Lawyer representing him or could not afford a qualified defense Lawyer...

What makes you say that? Have anything to back up the lousy lawyer idea?

More likely IMHO, the verdict was one they planned for. They can now appeal the lesser charge which is a whole lot better than appealing a conviction on 1st degree.

Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that he testifies at the appeal. They may have thought that testifying at this trial would have done more harm than good. Who knows.

Does anyone out there with legal experience know; if someone did not testify in their own defense, is an appeal to do so more likely to be granted? If so, my hypothetical strategy makes even more sense.

I'm just thinking out loud over here.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
What makes you say that? Have anything to back up the lousy lawyer idea?

More likely IMHO, the verdict was one they planned for. They can now appeal the lesser charge which is a whole lot better than appealing a conviction on 1st degree.

Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that he testifies at the appeal. They may have thought that testifying at this trial would have done more harm than good. Who knows.

Does anyone out there with legal experience know; if someone did not testify in their own defense, is an appeal to do so more likely to be granted? If so, my hypothetical strategy makes even more sense.

I'm just thinking out loud over here.

I agree that's a possibility on the planning for the lesser charge to be appealed but it's always best to go for total acquittal. Wouldn't want to play that game with my life.

I'm not aware of an appeal being anything more than the court looking at the record of the first trial for errors of the court in properly applying procedure, rules of evidence, etc. If you didn't testify at trial, I don't think any jurisdiction allows you to do so at appeal. Rhe purpose of the appeal process isn't to give you another chance to make your case, only to make the case that you were improperly convicted based on the prosecutions evidence, and your defense.

I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding. Any legal beagles that can clarify or correct me?
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
What makes you say that? Have anything to back up the lousy lawyer idea?

More likely IMHO, the verdict was one they planned for. They can now appeal the lesser charge which is a whole lot better than appealing a conviction on 1st degree.

Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that he testifies at the appeal. They may have thought that testifying at this trial would have done more harm than good. Who knows.

Does anyone out there with legal experience know; if someone did not testify in their own defense, is an appeal to do so more likely to be granted? If so, my hypothetical strategy makes even more sense.

I'm just thinking out loud over here.



The only thing I have to back up my crappy lawyer opinion is the fact that he was Convicted. A good lawyer would be able to show the facts, evidence, etc & make the jury understand that his client was innocent by knowing how to plant the seed of innocents & doubt in the jurors minds. You get what you pay for & Jesus was not a wealthy man. Although IANAL.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
I agree that's a possibility on the planning for the lesser charge to be appealed but it's always best to go for total acquittal. Wouldn't want to play that game with my life.

I'm not aware of an appeal being anything more than the court looking at the record of the first trial for errors of the court in properly applying procedure, rules of evidence, etc. If you didn't testify at trial, I don't think any jurisdiction allows you to do so at appeal. Rhe purpose of the appeal process isn't to give you another chance to make your case, only to make the case that you were improperly convicted based on the prosecutions evidence, and your defense.

I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding. Any legal beagles that can clarify or correct me?

As far as I know you are correct that an appeal in only to determine if there were errors in the handling of the trial primarily by the judge or actions on the part of someone involved with the process such as the attorneys or jury. New evidence cannot be introduced in the appeal process such as Jesus now telling his side of the story. However they could find that errors in the testimony of a witness such as the "smooth bore" comment could be critical. If so then they could grant a new trial and if so then Jesus could testify in that trial. Appeals are not to retry but only to decide if the first trial was handled properly. One basis for a new trial that is used is that the representation of the defendant was inadequate however that is ususally restricted to court appointed lawyers. I am sure this verdict will probably be appealed but have no idea if a hearing on the appeal will even be granted.
 

Ken8521

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
47
Location
Indianapolis
I agree that's a possibility on the planning for the lesser charge to be appealed but it's always best to go for total acquittal. Wouldn't want to play that game with my life.

I'm not aware of an appeal being anything more than the court looking at the record of the first trial for errors of the court in properly applying procedure, rules of evidence, etc. If you didn't testify at trial, I don't think any jurisdiction allows you to do so at appeal. Rhe purpose of the appeal process isn't to give you another chance to make your case, only to make the case that you were improperly convicted based on the prosecutions evidence, and your defense.

I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding. Any legal beagles that can clarify or correct me?

I dunno, while I admit I'm not a lawyer, that sure seems like a strange plan of attack. "Get convicted, then we'll appeal" Why would you do that? To me that doesn't even make sense. What if the appeal of the case doesn't turn out in your favor? Then you're sitting in prison hoping somehow you can keep appealing. Remember, he's gonna run out of money pretty quickly, given the fact prison wages are only about $1 a day, and I'm assuming his family is not independently wealthy.

My understanding of things, is pretty much exactly as PT111 put it.. Appeals are just that, appeals based on the original ruling, not a new trial where Jesus can decide he wants to testify. With the Defense his atty put up (which was none)... Jesus might have been better off w/ a Public Defender (you'd be amazed how comfortable some PD's are in a courtroom, because they typically see a LOT of court time).

His defense was very very strange, and I can't believe for one second their strategy was to get convicted, and then try to win an appeal.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Yes, first we must have, read and study the trial record for the basis of an appeal. But all that is moot if defendant/counsel do not claim their right to appeal within the statutory limit.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Something suspicious about this whole trial. Jesus was one of the pioneers of open carry. He was one of the first to take on a major establishment over his constitutional right to open carry a firearm for personal protection. A case that he won. He is very knowledgable on Wisconsin firearm laws and the risk of using deadly force. He is also aware that any felony conviction prevents him from even touching a firerm, possibly for life. It is hard for me to believe he would just sit and silently accept his fate, even on advice of his lawyer and especially if there was no pre-trial plea bargain. I'm not good at the new math but to me something about this whole trial doesn't add up.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Something suspicious about this whole trial. Jesus was one of the pioneers of open carry. He was one of the first to take on a major establishment over his constitutional right to open carry a firearm for personal protection. A case that he won. He is very knowledgable on Wisconsin firearm laws and the risk of using deadly force. He is also aware that any felony conviction prevents him from even touching a firerm, possibly for life. It is hard for me to believe he would just sit and silently accept his fate, even on advice of his lawyer and especially if there was no pre-trial plea bargain. I'm not good at the new math but to me something about this whole trial doesn't add up.

This. something smells funny.
 
Top