Culpeper shooting

user · Jun 4, 2016

ProShooter said:
That case still pains me.

Actually, he didn't lose his final appeal - he was never allowed to appeal. He had defenses which should have been presented to the jury, but his attorney was prohibited by the judge on motion of the commonwealth's attorney from doing so. The only question he would have had on appeal was really about his right to have his defenses presented to the jury, not that the jury should have decided in his favor. It's not a fair trial when people can't get a jury to hear their side of the story.

Grapeshot · Jun 4, 2016

user said:
Actually, he didn't lose his final appeal - he was never allowed to appeal. He had defenses which should have been presented to the jury, but his attorney was prohibited by the judge on motion of the commonwealth's attorney from doing so. The only question he would have had on appeal was really about his right to have his defenses presented to the jury, not that the jury should have decided in his favor. It's not a fair trial when people can't get a jury to hear their side of the story.

Indeed - IMO a trial is only fair when both sides have the ability to present their case fully.

Felt like there was a rush to judgement in this one - my patience was not rewarded with the full disclosure for which I had hoped.

MAC702 · Jun 4, 2016

ProShooter said:
That case still pains me.

On the plus side, only the people still alive get to feel pain.

ProShooter · Jun 6, 2016

user said:
It's not a fair trial when people can't get a jury to hear their side of the story.

So true....so true.

Va_Nemo · Jun 7, 2016

user said:
The only question he would have had on appeal was really about his right to have his defenses presented to the jury, not that the jury should have decided in his favor. It's not a fair trial when people can't get a jury to hear their side of the story.

Not having been in the courtroom hearing the arguments, nor having read the transcript or heard the recording of the arguments, I shall defer to the judge who made the rulings that his denial of presentation of that evidence was withing the bounds of law and rules of evidence.

Va_Nemo

JoeSparky · Jun 7, 2016

Va_Nemo said:
Not having been in the courtroom hearing the arguments, nor having read the transcript or heard the recording of the arguments, I shall defer to the judge who made the rulings that his denial of presentation of that evidence was withing the bounds of law and rules of evidence.

Va_Nemo

User does have very specific and detailed knowledge of the details of this particular case!

MAC702 · Jun 7, 2016

JoeSparky said:
User does have very specific and detailed knowledge of the details of this particular case!

While I respect his expertise, we are also supposed to assume the judge was unbiased.

Va_Nemo · Jun 8, 2016

JoeSparky said:
User does have very specific and detailed knowledge of the details of this particular case!

Be that as it may. It appears that

1. defendant, thru counsel, lost his arguments and CoA chose not to hear his appeal. The CoA will do that on occasion. Guess his argument was not strong enough to get the trial court Judge to rule in Def favor or CoA to hear it or SCOVA to hear it.

Or

2. he just got spanked by the luck of losing the draw.

I think I will go with number 1 above.

Nemo

va_tazdad · Jun 8, 2016

MAC702 said:
While I respect his expertise, we are also supposed to assume the judge was unbiased.

Unbiased judge? Hahahahahahahahahaha Oh, wait. You were serious?

My bad.

Grapeshot · Jun 8, 2016

A judge w/o personal bias, leanings to the left or right, who will decide based upon the law impartially is an ideal, not a reality, unfortunately.

OTOH - is there a concise, positive term for the judicial equivalent of nullification?

OC for ME · Jun 14, 2016

user said:
Actually, he didn't lose his final appeal - he was never allowed to appeal. He had defenses which should have been presented to the jury, but his attorney was prohibited by the judge on motion of the commonwealth's attorney from doing so. The only question he would have had on appeal was really about his right to have his defenses presented to the jury, not that the jury should have decided in his favor. It's not a fair trial when people can't get a jury to hear their side of the story.

What recourse does he have? If you believe the judge screwed up, and can prove he screwed up, what will you do?

Sorry. I failed to address a direct question.

user said:
So, for example, you feel that every time a cop arrests someone for DUI the cop should also be indicted for abduction and battery of the citizen whom he handcuffed and put in the back of the cruiser?

Of course if the stop is found to have been unlawful.

I know the reality today.

What I do not know is why the criminal defense law profession does not work to hold judges/prosecutors accountable for letting cops get away with abduction and battery of the citizen whom he handcuffed and put in the back of the cruiser unlawfully?

The lawyer's guild is a very powerful guild...no?

Why is it OK for a tax payer backed check to be all that is required to meet the proper redress of wrongs.

MAC702 · Jun 14, 2016

OC for ME said:
...The lawyer's guild is a very powerful guild...no?...

Is that why defense lawyers don't shout the education of the concept of jury nullification from the rooftops? Seems it would only help them, but perhaps the cost is too great to the legal community as a whole?

OC for ME · Jun 14, 2016

MAC702 said:
Is that why defense lawyers don't shout the education of the concept of jury nullification from the rooftops? Seems it would only help them, but perhaps the cost is too great to the legal community as a whole?

I believe that nullification would be used rarely and likely for/on the wrong case(s).

Nullification must be used for every trial that places a citizen in legal harm based only on a prior restraint violation. Such as peaceably carrying a pistol under your shirt without a government issued permission slip. The courts have said that a permit is legal, a prior restraint on out 2A, while the very same courts decrying virtually all prior restraints on our 1A.

user · Jun 16, 2016

Va_Nemo said:
Not having been in the courtroom hearing the arguments, nor having read the transcript or heard the recording of the arguments, I shall defer to the judge who made the rulings that his denial of presentation of that evidence was withing the bounds of law and rules of evidence.

Va_Nemo

Not unreasonable, but I wonder whether how you'll feel when you're in the position of having to defend yourself in a politically charged trial.

user · Jun 16, 2016

MAC702 said:
Is that why defense lawyers don't shout the education of the concept of jury nullification from the rooftops? Seems it would only help them, but perhaps the cost is too great to the legal community as a whole?

Mostly, they don't care. And there is no "lawyer's guild"; most of 'em regard themselves as being in a competitive business.

Grapeshot · Jun 16, 2016

user said:
Mostly, they don't care. And there is no "lawyer's guild"; most of 'em regard themselves as being in a competitive business.

How many dollars rest in pockets within our fair state?

Seems as if there are at least that many who, reaching for your pocket, claim to be THE attorney for you.

Culpeper shooting

user

Accomplished Advocate

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

ProShooter

Regular Member

Va_Nemo

Member

JoeSparky

Centurion

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

Va_Nemo

Member

va_tazdad

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

OC for ME

Regular Member

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

OC for ME

Regular Member

user

Accomplished Advocate

user

Accomplished Advocate

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior