Discussion for article #245778
Prosecutors said he was a gang member who carried a gun during two of those deals, though he was not accused of using or showing a weapon.
Well, if a prosecutor says it, it has to be true. After all, we are talking about a man who produced hip-hop and rap music. More importantly, prosecutors have been shown to be consistently beyond reproach.
How many prosecutors have ever been convicted and sentenced to hard time for lying or withholding evidence or simply making up facts of out of whole cloth? That’s right: ZERO.
6 Likes
Three cheers for a Federal Judge who actually has a sense of honor and decency. Too bad he stepped down we could use more like him.
19 Likes
Credit where it’s due: THIS man deserves to be a judge. It’s a shame that the system made him so sick at heart he couldn’t remain a part of it.
16 Likes
a Utah music producer 55 years in prison for bringing guns to marijuana deals
Was his name “Bald Headed John, the King of the Plookers”?
In all seriousness, this is the kind of victimless crime that’s now costing the taxpayers $60,000+ per year to ensure… he doesn’t sell dope.
3 Likes
It can’t be done until the 2016 election is over, if at all.
2 Likes
is there a limit on the number of guns an owner is allowed in utah? what fucking relevance does finding several in his apartment have on what he was/was not carrying when arrested?
what are the repercussions of a judge refusing to impose those mandatory sentences on someone who so clearly doesn’t deserve it?
and we all know prosecutors never, ever lie or overcharge to further their careers.
3 Likes
Great comment…
You mean like these two that were convicted on totally bunk fabricated or suppressed evidence and spent years in the joint on the taxpayers dime only to eventually be found innocent and awarded millions out of the taxpayers pockets yet the cops and prosecutors in these cases are either retired on full benefits or are still employed on the taxpayer’s dime? (The original prosecutor on the Bruce Lister case is now a sitting judge.)
L.A. to pay $24 million to two men imprisoned for
decades after wrongful murder convictions
The Los Angeles City Council agreed Tuesday to pay more than $24 million to settle lawsuits from two men who alleged that investigations by dishonest LAPD detectives led to their wrongful murder convictions and caused them to spend decades behind bars.
Kash Delano Register, who won his freedom in 2013 after lawyers and students from Loyola Law School cast doubt on the testimony of a key prosecution witness, will receive $16.7 million — the largest settlement in an individual civil rights case in the city’s history, his attorneys said. Bruce Lisker, who was released from prison in 2009 after a Times investigation into his conviction, will get $7.6 million.
Though the cases were unrelated, both men contended that detectives ignored evidence of their innocence and fabricated evidence of their guilt.
City lawyers concerned about the police misconduct allegations recommended the settlements, saying in confidential memos to the City Council obtained by The Times that taking the cases to trial could be even more financially devastating.
~OGD~
4 Likes
Good luck with that appeal. Obama has shown himself to be (almost) completely devoid of mercy. You have to go back to John Adams to find a President with a full term who has given clemency to fewer people than Obama did, and there were probably not all that many federal prisoners during President Adams’ term… Even among the Presidents who died during their term in office, only Zach Taylor and James Garfield have granted clemency less often than Obama. Every single other President has been more compassionate on that front, and several of them gave more than 10 or even 20 times as many pardons as Obama did.
1 Like
An issue with such broad appeal that even the Koch brothers are on bord. I think hell just froze over a bit right now.
2 Likes
That’s exactly what started the Oregon mishegas (except for that subordinate clause).
Only because an a$$wipe U.S. Attorney didn’t like the sentence.
We have judges and we call them judges because we expect them to exercise judgement. Determinate sentencing seems a positive source of injustice.
Yes, it is.
So is indeterminate, which is why California got rid of it before I ever practiced, although technically life sentences are indeterminate. The SDAP migraine book (OK, Appellate Program Manual) speaks of it.
Okay, I believe you. My father worked in the California Department of Corrections doing Vocational Education. I wish I’d written down some of the stories he told – he wouldn’t. FWIW, none of this is rhetorical – I’m interested in your opines, Joel.
Where is the sacred middle on this one? Determinate sentencing does unjust sh!t because prosecutors can manipulate things by overcharging and the judges’ hands are then tied by the sentencing algorithm. Indeterminate sentencing does unjust sh!t because it allows judges too much discretion? Or it’s cruel to lock someone up with no idea of when they will be released? How do we maximize the probability that a just outcome will result?
Or is it simply that sentencing enables unjust sh!t – it’s about rules (whatever the rules might be) and justice is possible side-effect? That is, there is no sacred middle?
Probably not, but if we’re looking for it we start with not electing judges. Not electing DAs wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.
My father was an anglophile raised in Canada (he was born in Philadelphia, but moved as a toddler). He admired the English system, where you may be a prosecutor today and a defense lawyer tomorrow. I think that might be worth giving a try, both to weed out politically ambitious prosecutors and to give all the lawyers, and hence judges, some ongoing perspective.
In the end, I think we have to be able to raise, and count on, the quality of judges. Lack of discretion won’t prevent gross injustice, and will certainly lead to some.
The problem with appointment systems (that’s the alternative to elections, right?) is the question of who does the appointing.
In New Mexico, my former home, judges are appointed by the Governor from a list of applicants approved by the Judicial Commission. No Senatorial consent is needed – instead, the appointee must undergo a partisan election in the next General Election. Governors never appoint a judge of the opposing party, and so the opposing party can (but need not) nominate an opponent. Once elected in a partisan election, the judge faces a retention election every four years. There is no opponent: the question is whether the judge should kept or fired. If fired, the Governor makes an appointment and the process begins again.
Do you think this is an improvement over continual partisan elections?
A very slight one. I am opposed to any partisan identification of judges. I am not all that fond of retention elections, especially since the idiot Bird dragged Reynoso and Grodin down when the death crowd went after them. I could see limited, say 8– or 12–year terms.
I like the choose one from column A approach. Give the guv a list of 3 or 5 qualified candidates.
I remember that election. What a complete clusterf*ck that was. I like the idea of limited (non renewable?) terms.