Friday, October 05, 2007

Delays

Rollin retrial confirmation delayed

Two evidentiary motions filed by attorneys unrelated to the prosecution or defense in the retrial of Joseph Pierre Rollin upended court proceedings Wednesday and delayed a trial confirmation hearing.

This case is being retried because the verdict was thrown out on appeal after a higher court determined that Gallegos used statements during the trial that were made by the defendant before he had been read his Miranda rights.

That is to say, Gallegos used Rollins' non-Mirandized denial of guilt as evidence rather than his Mirandized confession, reasoning that denying he was guilty proved he was guilty, something like that.

Deputy District Attorney Ben McLaughlin will prosecute the case this time around, with jury selection expected to begin later this month.

It's a horrific case, and it looks like McLaughlin is the office's new heavy hitter.
***
Attorneys' pretrial wrangling continues in dependent abuse case
***
As previously reported: "Joi died on March 19, 2002, probably bent into the bathtub of a condemned trailer in Orick, her body weighing only 60 pounds and swathed in a soiled disposable diaper.

A medical examiner determined that Joi, 42 years old and long rendered helpless by multiple sclerosis, died from lobar pneumonia with a variety of contributing factors.

These included MS, malnutrition, a urinary tract infection from a catheter that hadn’t been cleaned in several months and 20 or more feces-infected bedsores, two of which gaped so wide and deep that the bones beneath were exposed."

Joseph Pierre Rollin "was convicted only of the enhanced abuse of a dependent adult and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

But in December, the conviction was reversed on appeal because, court documents show, Gallegos repeatedly used Pierre’s non-Mirandized denial of responsibility for Joi’s death — later refuted by a Mirandized confession — as evidence of his guilt.

6 comments:

  1. Such a waste of time and resources (retirial). Another PVG legend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is somewhat off point but I don't know where else to express my observations.

    In reading he local blogs today, and this past week. I noticed that Heraldo has not posted anything on the man killed recently by a deputy in a marijuana garden! Hearaldo is first on the bus to attack the EPD for anything they do but not one post on this one ? ? ? ? ?

    Even Eric barely touched on it. Just seems kind of wierd, or unusual. After all it was in SoHum and it was marijuana related.

    Have the usual supects all the sudden become pro police ?! Or is there something a little deeper? With the recent press on marijuana (215's a sham, indoor grow fires, CAMPS's biggest year) maybe the folks that make a living off the marijuana don't want to discuss the issue, at least publicly? Is it because the guy killed was a Mexican? What would have happened if the guy shot would have been a second generation Humboldt white boy grower living in Salmon Creek?

    And there was the front page article in the T/S on the recovering herion addict getting started on weed and booze, then the weed wasn't enough.

    Seems kind of odd to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, if I were being charitable, I would say "he" has "his" hands full with the appeals to the FPPC and anti-railroad posts. It I was not in a charitable mood, I would say that there is no political advantage this time, "he" can't use the shooting to bolster Gallegos' chances of re-election by driving home the anti-cop fear tactics.

    What say you, heraldo?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rose, why no commentary on the sentencing of the drunken ex-marine who nearly killed his girlfriend in one of Eureka's most horrific accidents? Seems pretty shady that you are not touching the ridiculous sentence, if you can call it that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. He must be on vacation. That happens alot when he's feeling whimpy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, if I was feeling charitable, I might say that that was a tough case - the parents wanted to press charges, and their daughter, the victim, didn't, and I might say he'd been through enough, so I don't fault DDA Ben McLaughlin on this one. If I wasn't in a charitable mood, I might say if it was Schwartz I wouldn't be saying that, because, like heraldo, I'd be pressing for political advantage.

    But the truth is, even if it was Schwartz, I'd still see that this is a tough case, as I did from the time it first made news, before McLaughlin was assigned. The victim didn't want to press charges.

    Not a satisfactory answer, I am sure. I feel for the parents. But I also feel for the daughter.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.