Thursday, December 14, 2006

Gallegos' Rollins case overturned w/UPDATE

REVERSED ON APPEAL.

Ruling of man accused of causing the death of Orick woman overturned

Update:

In essence, there were several statements taken from the defendant. One was "Mirandized." One wasn't.

In the investigator's first interview, Rollin started talking before she had read him his rights. He denied any guilt.

In the subsequent interview, after having been read his rights, Rollin admitted guilt.

Instead of using the Mirandized admission of guilt, Gallegos made extensive use of the first statement. He used the un-Mirandized denial.

In other words, he used an illegal statement that was irrelevant and unnecessary.

In making its ruling the Appeals Court couldn't even consider it to be harmless error because Gallegos had made it central to his argument, playing both the videotape of the un-Mirandized statement, then contrasting it with the legally taken audio-taped Mirandized statement - and explicitly telling the jury to consider it as circumstantial evidence of Rollin guilt - apparently failing to understand the folly of using an un-Mirandized statement.

Read the full Ruling

The Appeals Court found that: 'Joseph Pierre Rollin appeals his conviction for abuse of a dependent adult. We reverse because a statement obtained in violation of the rule announced in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 was admitted at trial as evidence of his guilt, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.)"

15 comments:

  1. So does that mean he has to take a win check mark and put it in the loose column?

    I wonder what excuse he'll come up with for this one. He'll probably try and blame law enforcement for screwing it up... OH WAIT HE IS LAW ENFORCEMENT EVEN IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE... HE IS THE TOP COP IN THE COUNTY.

    I wonder if all his liberal cop hating, crime loving supporters know that he and all his Deputy DA's have and carry badges???

    Sorry Rose that got off topic a little.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I skimmed the ruling looking for texts of the statements. I'll look more closely later, but obviously the question is whether a conviction could have been obtained with only the Mirandized statement.

    So, will anyone blame the officer? Because if the second statement was inadequate, the case may have been lost before it even got to Gallegos.

    Yeah, yeah, I always defend Gallegos. Now address the argument.

    Eric (my account isn't registering with beta blogger yet, and I can't switch over.

    ReplyDelete
  3. too bad you only skimmed it.

    The good and legal statement was an admission that he was there with her when she died.

    The unmirandized statement was just a denial and nothing more.

    Gallegos' admission of this "irrelevant" statement was unnecessary and the fact that he didn't realize that this would reverse the whole case just shows what a lame attorney he is.

    Just to clarify again....it was unnecessary, irrelevant and then Gallegos compounded it by repeatedly arguing (per the court) that the jury could use it as circumstantial evidence of his guilt...

    What a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, if it's "irrelevant" then it shouldn't have been material so as to reverse the conviction.

    But are the exact quotes in the text of the decision? I couldn't find them.

    Eric

    ReplyDelete
  5. Face it Eric, your Pal Paul is just a mediocre lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. and a MORON

    ReplyDelete
  7. An evil person, mediocre lawyer, moron AND a man who has sold his soul to the devil. God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eric - the un-Mirandized statement was a denial of guilt. The Mirandized statement was an admission. It would seem the admission would be more valuable than the denial.

    You can conclude that the denial wasn't material but Paul made it material by arguing it - saying that Rollins' denial showed his guilt, he said they could convict on it....

    The Appeals Court could not find it to be harmless error because "the prosecutor" repeatedly referred to it (the denial) as circumstantial evidence of his guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric, you can't clean this one up. PF fubar'd ! Plain and simple. He's not very good at being a deputy DA, and a disaster as the DA>

    ReplyDelete
  10. and let's add the "back to the future" attempt to put
    the gun enhancement in Graham's manslaughter charge, after he forgot to send it to the jury.
    This is the same guy who wen to trial in a rape case
    in which 4 guys raped a 13 year old, the one guy who went to trial, the DA "forgot" to ask for the "rape in concert " instruction. He hung it, got lucky when the
    DNA came back to the one guy who demanded a trial.
    So dueling morons, karma got the rapist that time.
    But luck runs out, and talent has been run off, so
    it's all Paul now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul, yougofree, and arnie the skirt chaser.

    Humboldt has become a good place to be a criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What does "skirtchasing" have to do with one's courtroom performance? It's not as if he's the president. Did he put on a good case in Dinsmore or not? It's more troubling that reports are that he dumps work on other lawyers whenever he can. That's what happens when a well running team is
    systematically destroyed while simultaneously an
    atmosphere of cronyism and rank incompetence is fostered. Good team players want to join good teams. Which we dont' have anymore, thanks to the supervisors, the DA and the voters.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What cracks me up is that now all the shit is starting to hit the fan for Paul...he's taken it in the backside for the last couple of months and now the convictions are falling like dominos.

    I feel sorry for the victims here who are just going to get screwed over because he'll plea bargain this.

    But for the voters...you caught it, you keep it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Somebody should take a look at the number of cases rejected at time of filing and also look at the number of cases plead down from felonies to misdemeanors and also look at the number of outright dismissals.

    ReplyDelete
  15. pierre rollin you are guilty

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.