'Legally innocent' inmates ordered freed in N.C.

gearboy - 2012-08-17 8:48 AM

Well, they're probably guilty of something. 

tuwood - 2012-08-17 9:43 AM

Good thing they didn't get the death penalty...

I used to believe our legal system was just and equal.  It is neither.

Certainly there are people that do bad things and need to go to jail, but there are a lot of people that do innocent things that also get put in jail.

powerman - 2012-08-17 10:05 AM

I would like to think that you guys actually read the article. The USA Today story that is linked. It is very complicated and it isn't just cut and dried that they are innocent. Sounds like a huge mess nobody knows how to clean up.

And McCullen was sentenced incorrectly and served one year in prison. He had a record before. He got out and committed armed robbery and got 3 years he is serving now. Which is why he is still there.

tuwood - 2012-08-17 7:43 AM

Good thing they didn't get the death penalty...

I used to believe our legal system was just and equal.  It is neither.

Certainly there are people that do bad things and need to go to jail, but there are a lot of people that do innocent things that also get put in jail.

powerman - 2012-08-17 10:08 AM

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. People are wrongfully convicted all the time. But I believe many more people walk when they shouldn't than the other way around.

DanielG - 2012-08-17 8:34 AM As it should be. As for the confusion of the illegality, it may not have been as cut and dried originally but after the 4th Circuit ruling it is VERY cut and dried, yes/no. If the person could be sentenced to over a year in prison/jail for the offense convicted, they cannot possess a firearm, period. If the person could be sentenced (max) under or up to a year for the conviction, they can possess firearms, period. There's no gray area once the idea of sliding max sentences due to previous history was thrown out. Then the US should go through the records with the new lens and release all those who do not fit the ruling for prison for possession of a firearm.

powerman - 2012-08-17 10:05 AM

I would like to think that you guys actually read the article. The USA Today story that is linked. It is very complicated and it isn't just cut and dried that they are innocent. Sounds like a huge mess nobody knows how to clean up.

And McCullen was sentenced incorrectly and served one year in prison. He had a record before. He got out and committed armed robbery and got 3 years he is serving now. Which is why he is still there.

gearboy - 2012-08-17 9:38 AM

Like I said...

powerman - 2012-08-17 9:08 AM

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. People are wrongfully convicted all the time. But I believe many more people walk when they shouldn't than the other way around.

tuwood - 2012-08-17 9:58 AM

You are correct, but the "system" is horribly broken and the prosecutors are more extortionists than anything else.  You get charged with 10 felonies with a possible sentence of 150 years so they can "leverage" you into pleading guilty to this one felony and we'll make sure you don't serve more than 1.  This coupled with 95% of the people accused get tied up with overworked public defenders that encourage them to "take the deal" so they have less work to do, equals a very broken system.  Many people cannot afford attorneys, and they pay dearly for it.

tuwood - 2012-08-17 8:43 AM

Good thing they didn't get the death penalty...

I used to believe our legal system was just and equal.  It is neither.

Certainly there are people that do bad things and need to go to jail, but there are a lot of people that do innocent things that also get put in jail.

DanielG - 2012-08-17 10:44 AM Now what's going to make this interesting is the court will have to find if this applies to any of the "add on" sentencing. Rough list off the top of my head, not the actual wording just the idea of each I can remember: hate crime +5 years crime using firearm +10 years etc If you plea bargain a mugging down to something stupid like disturbing the peace (not >1 year) but they kept the "using firearm" add on, then your max sentence could be 11 years. BUT your actual crime was disturbing the peace and carries a less than one year sentence. Hmmm

tuwood - 2012-08-17 11:58 AM

You are correct, but the "system" is horribly broken and the prosecutors are more extortionists than anything else.  You get charged with 10 felonies with a possible sentence of 150 years so they can "leverage" you into pleading guilty to this one felony and we'll make sure you don't serve more than 1.  This coupled with 95% of the people accused get tied up with overworked public defenders that encourage them to "take the deal" so they have less work to do, equals a very broken system.  Many people cannot afford attorneys, and they pay dearly for it.

Brock Samson - 2012-08-17 12:37 PM

This depends on the specific sentencing structure of the state and how the state defines felonies and misdemeanors, and how the state structures these "enhancements"  Not all states structure these enhancements similarly.  For instance in Florida the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime both enhances the degree of offense, e.g. a third degree felony would become a second degree felony, and it increases the sentencing minimums under the sentencing guidelines by increasing the severity level of the offense, and most firearms charges in Florida also carry with them minimum mandatory prison sentences.

In Florida your example could not occurr under the sentencing structure currently in place.

Also, the article applies only to Federal Sentencing, there could be and probably are State firearms charges that could be brought that this case doesn't implicate.

DanielG - 2012-08-17 12:57 PM For nothing else other than ease of discussion I was ignoring state laws other than how they pertained to this ruling about US Code having to do with a person convicted of a crime with a possible sentence of over a year. Don't care about state gun laws as this is a fed court deciding on fed law. Yeah, the state's "bump up" stuff may very well come into play at some point. Then again if no one challenges it then I guess it won't. I'm just musing over what if.

Brock Samson - 2012-08-17 12:49 PM

This is simply incorrect.  I'm assuming that you're actually not in the criminal justice field. 

The notion that a prosecutor is an extortionist for charging someone with all the charges then have legally committed and that the government can legally charge someone with is a ridiculous statement.  If someone committs an offense, or multiple offenses, the government can charge that person with each and every crime they committ.  The fact that the government doesn't "under charge" or agree out of shear beneovolence to "waive' the filing of charges does not mean an individual is being extorted. The government files the charges that (1) the person legally committed and (2) they have a good faith basis to believe they can prove.  As a point of clarification there is no constitutional right to a plea bargain.  There is no consitutional right to be under charged.  There is no constitutional right to have the government waive filing charges.

Theoretically the government could file every charge they think the person committed and then not engage in plea offers and take every case to trial or in the alternative require the defendant to enter a plea straight up to the court without benefit of a plea agreement.

While most public defenders do carry far more cases then most private attorneys, they also tend to have far more experience handling cases, and in trying cases.  The dirty little secret that the private bar doesn't like people to know is that public defenders tend to have far more trial experience than their similarly situated private attorneys.  There are of course exceptions, but typically public defenders have more trial experience. 

Additionally, because someone has a public defender, paid for by the public, that persons entire defense is paid at public expense.  Thus, any investigation, or any expert, or any defense may be explored at public expense.  Not so with a private attorney.  That attorney can only do what the client can afford to pay for in terms of investigation, experts, ect.

Typically people are counsled to "take the deal" because the evidence in most cases is overwhelming against the accussed.  Conviction rates are high not because of extortion or bad defense attorneys but because the government usually only brings cases they know they can win.

Additionally, the rate of plea deals with private attorneys far exceeds the rate of plea resolved cases with public defenders.  What I'm saying is that its the private attorneys that plea cases at a higher percentage, and go to trial less.  (As a whole)

Brock Samson - 2012-08-17 11:49 AM

This is simply incorrect.  I'm assuming that you're actually not in the criminal justice field. 

The notion that a prosecutor is an extortionist for charging someone with all the charges then have legally committed and that the government can legally charge someone with is a ridiculous statement.  If someone committs an offense, or multiple offenses, the government can charge that person with each and every crime they committ.  The fact that the government doesn't "under charge" or agree out of shear beneovolence to "waive' the filing of charges does not mean an individual is being extorted. The government files the charges that (1) the person legally committed and (2) they have a good faith basis to believe they can prove.  As a point of clarification there is no constitutional right to a plea bargain.  There is no consitutional right to be under charged.  There is no constitutional right to have the government waive filing charges.

Theoretically the government could file every charge they think the person committed and then not engage in plea offers and take every case to trial or in the alternative require the defendant to enter a plea straight up to the court without benefit of a plea agreement.

While most public defenders do carry far more cases then most private attorneys, they also tend to have far more experience handling cases, and in trying cases.  The dirty little secret that the private bar doesn't like people to know is that public defenders tend to have far more trial experience than their similarly situated private attorneys.  There are of course exceptions, but typically public defenders have more trial experience. 

Additionally, because someone has a public defender, paid for by the public, that persons entire defense is paid at public expense.  Thus, any investigation, or any expert, or any defense may be explored at public expense.  Not so with a private attorney.  That attorney can only do what the client can afford to pay for in terms of investigation, experts, ect.

Typically people are counsled to "take the deal" because the evidence in most cases is overwhelming against the accussed.  Conviction rates are high not because of extortion or bad defense attorneys but because the government usually only brings cases they know they can win.

Additionally, the rate of plea deals with private attorneys far exceeds the rate of plea resolved cases with public defenders.  What I'm saying is that its the private attorneys that plea cases at a higher percentage, and go to trial less.  (As a whole)

tuwood - 2012-08-17 2:34 PM

On the surface everything you say is correct, but in reality it doesn't really work that way in my experience.

I've seen it first hand and public defenders get about 5 minutes with each client prior to their bond hearing, so most people get hammered in their bond hearings and can't get out of jail.  This drastically increases the motivation of the person to take a plea.  Plead guilty and either get out of jail (probation) or start your sentence.  Fight and go to trial, you're going to sit in jail for 6 months minimum, but more likely a year plus. (talking poor people here with Public defenders.)

With our legal system you have the right to go to trial, but if you do and are found guilty you will be punished much harsher.  Shouldn't be that way, but it is.  You also have to sit in jail for 6 months to a year in order to get to said trial.  This also motivates the heck out of people to take plea deals, even if they're innocent.

Extortion probably isn't the right word, but prosecutors absolutely know this and they use it to their advantage.  They try to pile every possible charge they can and leverage that to the fullest extent.

Obviously this is not in all cases and there are a lot of people that need to go to jail, so I'm not some crazy that thinks everyones innocent.  I have just experienced first hand one of these prosecutorial railroad jobs and during the process saw a lot of people without means get absolutely rocked for very minor offenses.  I had means and was able to defend myself, so you can say that the system worked.  But in order for me to make that system work it took three years and a boat load of money.

tuwood - 2012-08-17 12:34 PM

Obviously this is not in all cases and there are a lot of people that need to go to jail, so I'm not some crazy that thinks everyones innocent.  I have just experienced first hand one of these prosecutorial railroad jobs and during the process saw a lot of people without means get absolutely rocked for very minor offenses.  I had means and was able to defend myself, so you can say that the system worked.  But in order for me to make that system work it took three years and a boat load of money.