Saved a Man's Life Today.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,477
Location
Pensacola FL
In that other thread about people not keeping appointments on time, I mentioned that after I had retired from the Marines, I returned to the Public Defender's office, where I had started my legal career, over fifteen years ago. Got some nice feedback about that, which I appreciate.

Today, I had a nice reminder of why I did this. I took a homeless guy to trial. He was accused of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon (two counts). In front of our hardest sentencing trial judge, he was facing a mandatory minimum of at least 10 years, if convicted as charged. Had he been convicted, he'd have been in prison at least until he was 60 -- not a pretty picture for him.

The case was a load of, ummmm, fragrant mud. He had approached a couple with a lone twenty, seeking change, so he could call someone for a ride. They assumed he was just panhandling, and basically attacked him, both verbally and physically. When it got called in, they claimed he attacked them, with a knife no less.

But he was arrested within minutes of the incident, still in sight of his "victims", and no knife was ever found, on him or nearby.

The wife, today, swore up and down that my guy slashed at her husband with "the knife". She described it today as a folding blade knife. In the under-oath statement she gave about 30 min post incident, she said my guy had a box cutter, and made no mention at all of my guy slashing at her hubbie. Sure, we'd all forget that, wouldn't we. . .

The jury found him guilty of misdemeanor (no weapon) assault x2, a pair of 2nd degree misdemeanors. Max time for each is 60 days. Judge "Goldenheart" gave him two sixties, consecutive, for 120 days total. But he had already served 145 days pre-trial, so he went straight home (or, er, back to the streets and homelessness...). But boy was he happy and grateful.

There's no feeling like standing between a righteous, but powerless man, and the misguided authority of the State. I will sleep well tonight, after giving thanks for having the power and skills necessary to stop the government dead in its tracks (when it deserves to be stopped).

Hey, justice happens sometimes!
cheers3.gif
 
Sweet. I had to use a PD a couple months ago. I was told how bad an idea it was, but I got lucky and got someone who cares. They do exist, it seems!
 
Thanks EKP, My eldest son graduated from U Conn Law in 09. He passed the MA bar in November. He and a fellow classmate hang out at the courthouse in Springfield taking clients who make too much money to be represented by a Public Defender. I am going forward him a link to this .
 
So ,the Plaintiff(husband) had a very small verbal role with this ,was it mostly a case of the wife wanting to feel victimized?,and then vindicated somehow?
 
Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
So ,the Plaintiff(husband) had a very small verbal role with this ,was it mostly a case of the wife wanting to feel victimized?,and then vindicated somehow?


The husband had attacked first. My guy had his twenty in hand (he had just sold blood plasma for cash, a common homeless moneymaker, and had the slip even -- ignored by all but me). The hubbie, who had actually written a statement that included a diatribe about homeless panhandlers, ASSUMED my guy was panhandling when he asked for change for the twenty. The censor will prevent anything close to an accurate quote of this.

The wife, who claimed to be deathly afraid of my guy, jumped out from the safety of her Durango, to join in the attack on my guy. My guy probably got the misdemeanors for bowing up trying to defend himself as the two kept coming at him.

The 911 call recording for us was pure gold. My guy was upset and yelling at them (clearly responsive to what they said), but it more importantly showed the wife, who in court pretended to be an intimidated sweetie, using an incredible torrent of obscenities at my guy, AND had my guy clearly yelling, "yes, please, send the cops right now..." I told the prosecutor, in essence, that if he didn't play it, we would. He did, but he just couldn't explain away the poison to his case.
 
Why did they attack the homeless guy ?

They should of just said no and walked away.
 
Ok, now, given the evidence, what kind of low life scum is the prosecutor to actually take this case to trial????

Not to mention the police who locked him up for 145 days. I'm just glad I don't live in your town with such fine upstanding police officers of the law.

Almost forgot about the so called victims who filed a false police report??? What about them??


Anyway, good going ekpolk...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Why did they attack the homeless guy ?

They should of just said no and walked away.


That just wasn't enough for this pair. They were really special.

Cross-examining the wife, especially, was a real treat. She was one of those "cute evasive" types who thinks she can evade giving answers she doesn't like. Until she met someone who knows how to cross-examine and won't back down (me...). At least a dozen times during her cross, I got to zing her with something along the lines of, "That's nice ma'am, now, my question was ... would you care to answer it?" Beating her into submission, non-physically of course, was a sheer delight of deserved "spot justice".

Short answer: not sure except that they were giant sphincters...
 
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Ok, now, given the evidence, what kind of low life scum is the prosecutor to actually take this case to trial????

Not to mention the police who locked him up for 145 days. I'm just glad I don't live in your town with such fine upstanding police officers of the law.

Anyway, good going ekpolk...


This is Florida -- prosecuting is a political and statistical business. This leads to many cases of prosecutors simply deciding that it's easier to just believe what their victims claim, and let juries sort it out. The elected "State Attorney" (called District Attorneys in many other places) then doesn't have to worry about someone running against them claiming they're "soft on crime". See, in our case, the jury "did it," not the SAO.
 
Last edited:
Based on the evidence above, the alleged victims had their credibility severely damaged ie they lied in their statements compared to their actions as recorded. Why was the defendant found guilty of anything?

Btw, not suggesting you didn't do a great job here, clearly you did.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Why did they attack the homeless guy ?

They should of just said no and walked away.


That just wasn't enough for this pair. They were really special.

Cross-examining the wife, especially, was a real treat. She was one of those "cute evasive" types who thinks she can evade giving answers she doesn't like. Until she met someone who knows how to cross-examine and won't back down (me...). At least a dozen times during her cross, I got to zing her with something along the lines of, "That's nice ma'am, now, my question was ... would you care to answer it?" Beating her into submission, non-physically of course, was a sheer delight of deserved "spot justice".

Short answer: not sure except that they were giant sphincters...


Nice, now if somebody can just do that to [political] that hits home for the other half of America ..........................
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: rjacket
Based on the evidence above, the alleged victims had their credibility severely damaged ie they lied in their statements compared to their actions as recorded. Why was the defendant found guilty of anything?

Btw, not suggesting you didn't do a great job here, clearly you did.


No problem. My guy's problem was that he did indicate that, after they got out of the car, and came after him, he used some pretty harsh language on them too. Came through on the 911 recording. To me, he was clearly responding to their threats with bluffing counter threats, as in telling them he would kick their ----- if they didn't back off, as he was trying to cross the street to go the place where he sat and waited for the cops. Add to that the fact that he's a none-too-desirable homeless guy (we had him dressed up some, but still...) and you have a good recipe for a "split baby" verdict. Sure, I'd have preferred a straight acquittal, but I'll happily take this verdict all day long!
cheers3.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom