Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2009 13:40:36 GMT -5
I know Kma's view on this case, but wondered if anybody else is familiar with it and have an opinion?
My opinion...I don't believe there was an underlying felony, i.e. burglary. I think they intended to buy the drugs. So the felony murder rule shouldn't apply. Jason deserves to be punished for taking a life, but it was an impulsive act during a fight, so the crime should be manslaughter, not murder. The others are not guilty.
All four are guilty of being stupid alcohol and drug abusing idiots, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 24, 2009 19:56:30 GMT -5
Does that mean I can't counter? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2009 10:53:17 GMT -5
lol. Sorry, didn't mean to hold you back.
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 25, 2009 19:52:59 GMT -5
There was testimony at the trial that all of the defendants robbed another woman earlier in the day, as well as testimony from a friend or friends of the defendants that they planned to rob the victim who survived. Additionally, the entry into the yard and the "fort" didn't strike me as consistent with an intent to purchase weed, but rather with the intent to overwhelm and rob the victim(s).
That's my 11 cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2009 13:22:04 GMT -5
It has always puzzled me why reviewing courts have found the "unusual" entry into the yard as strong evidence of intent to rob. They jumped the fence, but I just don't see what that proves. Nor do I find the wallet theft to be particularly persuasive. Jason stole and threw it away shortly after. I don't even know that the other defendants encouraged him to steal it or knew he was going to.
Can you elaborate on this:
"testimony from a friend or friends of the defendants that they planned to rob the victim who survived."
I don't recall this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 26, 2009 20:51:37 GMT -5
If they were going to buy pot from the guy, they would've entered the backyard through the gate at the front of the house as though they were going to hang out for a while with their buddies in the fort. Jumping the fence to enter the yard suggests that they didn't want to be seen going into the yard or the fort because they were up to no good.
I live in a "hood" and have a couple of drug houses in the area that the local cops can't seem to shut down for good. People walk up to the front and hang for a few, then mosey off. They don't cut across backyards and jump fences to buy their drugs.
The testimony about a plan to rob the surviving victim who had the fort is somewhere in one of the briefs, or the Judge's opinion. Lame excuse, I know, but I don't have access to my external hard drive from my laptop and I'm still in the process of trying to copy things from the external drive to the laptop (it takes HOURS). I'll try to find a page reference over the weekend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2009 13:04:37 GMT -5
Some neighbors observed them jumping the fence, so at any rate they were seen. I would think that whether they intended to rob or buy McLoren, that going to a drug dealer's place is not a place you'd like to be seen either way.
I would hazard a guess that you're referring to the Katren Anderson statement where Chris Velardo (the driver who didn't enter the fort) said "they were going to get some weed." Didn't say "buy" or "steal" but get. She didn't testify BTW but that's what in the opinion/briefs. That's the closest to it I can remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 12:02:30 GMT -5
I am not sure I know this case, is it the one that was in the documentary Reckless Indifference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 13:41:34 GMT -5
Yes it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 13:51:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 18:25:56 GMT -5
Thank you very much!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2009 13:40:36 GMT -5
No problem  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2009 15:28:15 GMT -5
Oral arguments before the 9th Circuit Court will take place on October 7 according to a new docket entry.
08/03/2009 51 CALENDARED: 10/07/20099:00 AM Pasadena, CA Courtroom 3 [7012931] [04-72155, 07-56078, 08-50162, 07-56277, 07-56288, 07-56365, 07-56367, 08-50365, 08-55782] (AM)
The 9th Circuit website posts audio files of arguments the day after they took place. I for one am definitely going to download and listen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2010 12:23:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Apr 13, 2010 20:16:46 GMT -5
Have you heard whether they're going to appeal to the USSC?
kma367
|
|
