• 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.

Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
Interesting case. Its great to see that it all worked out well for Skid.

Every time that P'dex spoke during court, I kept having a mental image of the bass player in the video Peter posted. He certainly was 'animated' (at one point the Judge told him to stop banging his pad on the table). Some of the folks who have been to multiple trials indicated later that he had 'calmed down' considerably! DOH! The way he was huffing and puffing while User was questioning people, I can't imagine his earlier antics.

As the judge gave his decision I was watching the sheriff. Based on his reaction it seemed clear that he was not happy with the verdict. He shook his head a bit, and wiped his forehead, looking down towards the floor. (In the parking lot as he was leaving he was probably kicking rocks like a little kid too... but that part is just speculation :uhoh:... )

I did find it somewhat 'odd' that the sheriff, who was a party/witness/'involved' in the case.... would place himself up by the bench, and actually behind the bench beside the judge for the latter parts of the trial (after the sheriff had testified). I understand that his office has obligations to the court (bailiff), but for most of the trial, at least one other deputy was present in the courtroom (at times there were numerous deputies). It just seemed weird to see him testify, then place himself in front of the court in that manner. Maybe it was just perception on my part..... who knows.

As mentioned earlier, it was interesting that the judge stated that 'OC'ing was permitted, and arguing with someone while OC'ing was also permitted' (paraphrasing).

Overall a fascinating day. I really had a hard time predicting the outcome of the case (thats probably the way it should be...), and probably didn't agree with all the judges comments..... but Not Guilty is Not Guilty!

Congrats again Skid! Hopefully someone posts a pic of you in the shirt... so I can show the wife. :D
 

ed

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
4,841
Location
Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
but for most of the trial, at least one other deputy was present in the courtroom (at times there were numerous deputies)
There were two times (that counted) when ALL deputies were either out of the room or sequestered in the witness room. I wonder if the judge and Mr. P. Ever noticed that they were in a room with a bunch of gun owners and had no security at times.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
There were two times (that counted) when ALL deputies were either out of the room or sequestered in the witness room. I wonder if the judge and Mr. P. Ever noticed that they were in a room with a bunch of gun owners and had no security at times.

I missed that (although someone did mention one occurance during lunch conversation). I must have been engaged with the court procedings during those times. That is interesting though.... a room full of gun owners, and nothing 'bad' happened. Imagine that....
 

GasCharged

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Toano, VA
Congrats to Skid and User.....
I always felt that it would end this way, from all the comments I have read.
Skid always seemed to be an upstanding person and none of these charges, was making any sense to me.
Again, good going!!!!!
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Good summaries already posted. That's pretty much what happened.

There was no question in my mind that some of the witnesses had been coached. That's an allegation of a serious ethical violation, as to which I have no more than an opinion at this point, but it looked that way to me.

This thing about the "blurry" quality of the video data first came up very recently, and as of yesterday, several of the witnesses said something similar. The head security guy for VDOT testified, but had no answer for why they'd have security surveillance systems that don't reveal any information. He said that they have it because DHS and the Coast Guard told them that they have to have it.

Here's another thing: both Wyche and Ripley testified in the January hearing that the data only lasts for three weeks in that machine prior to having been overwritten. However, the VDOT security guy and Ripley testified yesterday that the data had been preserved for thirty days, in compliance with the Virginia Public Records Act. This deviation was not lost on Judge Zepkin who indicated that he was aware of it when I called it to his attention. This was useful not just because the data was theoretically available when I asked for it, but because it showed that the witnesses were lying. Ripley, in fact, committed perjury, I think, though I'm not sure he was actually sworn in the January hearing.

The second major issue in which I think there may have been prosecutorial misconduct is in the developing structure of the complainant's story. The 911 call (which I was not permitted to play, but was able to describe in my request) never mentioned firearms, just finger-pointing. In Wyche's complaint, finger-pointing is mentioned three times, and there is a suggestion that Skidmark's hand passed by his gun at one time. In a subsequent memo, the subsequently filed incident report these suggestions get increasingly focussed on the gun over time; finally, he starts talking about having been "in fear for his life".

Poindexter made it clear in his argument yesterday that he thought that the plain meaning of the statute, "in such a manner as to induce fear in the mind of a reasonable person", meant that it was an element of the offense that the person actually had to be afraid. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Sup. Ct. of Virginia has redefined that phrase to mean the same thing as the traditional assault language, "apprehension of an immediate battery". Poindexter was clearly unaware of those cases. I am of the opinion that Wyche's increasingly frequent references to his having been actually afraid are clearly due to Poindexter's having instructed him on what to say and how to say it.

Here's what I said to Skidmark in an email this morning:

Yeah, well, it's really the evidence that makes the case, the lawyer's job is to make sure that the right evidence that will sway that particular judge is laid out in an orderly fashion. And, since one never knows what will tip the scales for that particular judge, one has to put absolutely everything out there, and somewhat redundently. You really won the case for yourself. You were direct, confident, answered the questions that were asked, and didn't seem to be weaseling on anything. Very much in contrast to Mr. Wyche, whom I thought the judge pegged pretty quickly as not credible. I feel I need to cover every possible base in every case, and leave no stone unturned. But when it came down to it, it was really your demeanor and testimony that won. All I did was ask questions.

Thank the God that we had a good judge. By far, the best I've seen in the GDC anywhere. If we'd been stuck with /*a less qualified judge*/, Poindexter would have done whatever he wanted to do, and we'd be in the Circuit Court now on appeal. There are GDC judges whom I've felt I'd do better putting everything in comic-book format for them.

Here's another reason for acquittal at trial rather than a win on the due process motion: it limits the opportunity for civil liability on the part of Poindexter et al. The judge did those guys a favor in doing things that way.

I have no idea right now on the future course of civil liability issues, and, because that may be pending litigation, I can't say much about that. This case is over, though, so I can be more free in discussing the law, procedure, and facts of the case. Right now, my brain still hurts, so unless anyone has any specific questions, I'm not up to a complete summary.
 
Last edited:

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
One interesting tidbit that I had not heard before was that Skid had previously used the ferry many times and had been SCREENED BEFORE. He said he was not objecting to the screening, but how it was handled and the attitudes of the security guards. Thus, his stop by the supervisors office to complain. One of the guards also said that guns rode the ferry often, in both directions, with no issues.

My impression is this was much ado about nothing, but we knew that. Getting charged with "contempt of security" sucks.

eta: my head hurts, too. Listening to legalese for five hours nearly made my ears bleed!
 
Last edited:

HeroHog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
628
Location
Shreveport, LA
MANY Thanks to you User for all your hard work! Get some rest and fill us in when ya can. We greatly appriciate all that you have done for Skid and us all!
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
Right now, my brain still hurts, so unless anyone has any specific questions, I'm not up to a complete summary.

I have a question that maybe you can answer. You mentioned that their liability has been diminished because of a not guilty. I am wondering why that is. It would seem to me that a person who proves his innocence should be able to at least recoup time lost and cost of legal services as well as any emotional damage. Why would that change vr a dismissal vr not guilty verdict?
 
Last edited:

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Congratulation Skid. A weight off the shoulders I'm sure. Congratulation to User and all those that were instrumental in this victory. May have to look into Virginia in my retirement plans (a few years to go) as the place to resettle. Love Michigan, but love freedom more.

Cheers,
Brian
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
... You mentioned that their liability has been diminished because of a not guilty....?

My guess on this would be that if the judge dismissed the case at any point before the trial it would add weight to the argument that the prosecutor didn't have a case. Since the judge ruled a couple times against dismissal and for the prosecutor it adds weight that the event in question deems examination and a judgement. IANAL
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
Mr. Poindexter did try to play the race card.

That's what I have been waiting to hear. I have followed this from the beginning. I was waiting for someone to say it. That fact should not be overlooked.

My not so humble opinion:

Skid knowing his rights, dared to exercise them in front of self-important authorities that didn't like what they may have perceived as a redneck standing up to their authority. I smelled a rat from the very beginning.
I might alienate some of you, but I'm not sorry. I have seen this type of shenanigan played time and time again. This was racist to it's core.

Q: What kind of sloppy police send in a swat team to the man's home hours after the fact?
A: An incompetent, racist black police that didn't care for Skid's whiteness along with his antics standing up to their "authority."

What a joke. This whole thing is a joke. My hat's off to all of you for being highly visible and supporting Skid.
 

Ridgerunner316

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
11
Location
Virginia Beach
Surry County?

Is this the same Surry County where the Commonwealth's Attorney initially declined to prosecute Michael Vick re: dog fights??? And only presented evidence to a grand jury after the Federal indictments came out??? Despite having a number of credible witnesses???
 
Last edited:
Top