Monday, June 30, 2014

Bad deals

When you have a serious violent felony - which this is - you can't get probation. The legislature has said NO probation unless there are unusual circumstances, laid out BY the legislature. Judge Feeney, looking at all the facts, ruled no unusual circumstances that would allow for probation - so the (previous plea) was rejected.

This issue was decided.

Now - oddly - it has been put back in play - with the same plea deal (that was rejected) another judge, another courtroom, no notification to the victim...

You have the usual game of musical-chair-prosecutors, looks like judge-shopping, and back-room deals.... what's going on...

Previous plea deal rejected back on table with no victim notification; exact deal - John Chiv/Words Worth

THEN... you've got a rumor of a plea deal cooked up WHILE the case is under appeal (for a mistrial)

Timothy Littlefield deal in the works? - John Chiv/Words Worth

Black Friday, 75% Off Already Low Discount Prices! Fire Sale! But wait, there's more!!

__________________

36 comments:

  1. Rose is my favorite armchair quarterback

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon and you are my favorite quarterback troll.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The proposed deal is a travesty. Mr. Littlefield's mistrial was a miscarriage of justice, with no legal basis.
    And how hard is this to find out?
    Google

    california juror misconduct post verdict interviews

    check the second result.

    Mr. Littlefield got a mistrial based on statements made during a post verdict interview, where the juror said he failed to follow the judge's instructions, a position he later reversed--

    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/Blogthing/archives/2014/05/12/mckinleyville-man-facing-8-life-sentences-granted-mistrial

    One of those jurors, Clanton said, told his investigator that he simply felt the defense didn’t prove Littlefield was not guilty during the trial. “I almost fell out of my chair,” Clanton said. Knowing the criminal justice system places the burden of proof on the prosecution in all cases, and that he, Feeney and the prosecutor, District Attorney Paul Gallegos, had all gone to lengths to explain that to the jurors, Clanton said he then had the juror sign a sworn declaration saying he felt the defense didn’t prove its case.

    Gallegos said the juror, when called to the stand at the sentencing hearing, told the court that he knew it was, in fact, the prosecution who had the burden of proving its case. But the declaration was ultimately enough for Feeney to declare a mistrial, saying he couldn’t send a man to prison for life with this potential juror misconduct hanging over the case, according to Clanton.

    Here's the problem. That statement by the juror: specifically inadmissible under the law. The verdict was fine, and should have been allowed to stand. Clanton misrepresented the law, the DA's office did not catch it, and neither did the judge.

    http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-steele-31344

    People v. Steele (2002)27 Cal.4th 1230
    '[A] verdict may not be impeached by inquiry into the juror's mental or subjective reasoning processes, and evidence of what the juror "felt" or how he understood the trial court's instructions is not competent.' " (People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 231, quoting People v. Sutter (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 806, 819.) . . .

    The high court found that the federal rule restricting evidence to impeach a verdict "is grounded in the common-law rule against admission of jury testimony to impeach a verdict and the exception for juror testimony relating to extraneous influences," and it found it "not at all clear . . . that the jury system could survive" a rule permitting broader attacks on a verdict. (Tanner v. United States, supra, 483 U.S. at pp. 121, 120.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. January can't come fast enough to get this inept jackass out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Considering our new DAs history, I'm not hopeful

    ReplyDelete
  6. 429, you are either ignorant or malicious. Or both. Why not tell us your name, and or detail your professional contact with Ms. Fleming, so readers can weigh the value of your opinion. You are clearly not a judge, not a senior defense lawyer, not one familiar with Ms. Fleming's work.

    Or, you could be Dollison or Chand, so we could add bitter to ignorant and malicious.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just so we're clear. Slamming Paul for incompetence is ok, but criticizing Fleming is "Malicious" and you must be qualified to do so. We've seen what she has to offer. Not interested. If you feel you're above the law you shouldn't be DA but the voters don't care as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The voters haven't got this office right for a very long time . Glad to say I do not work there and hopefully I don't need the criminal justice system anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The only attorney in the office supporting Fleming was Cardoza. County Counsel was happy to see her go and only the DA investigators want her

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes !!!! January can't come soon enough. Fleming will be a true breath of fresh air. I hope these young DDA's appreciate the positive change that will be possible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So who is the Fleming hater (8:13) who posts here so often? Chand maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are a number of hateful comments made here about many individuals, including Rose.

    Don't make assumptions who posts. There are miserable individuals who sit and attack anyone on the internet instead of doing anything productive.

    Speaks to their character, not the individuals being attacked.

    9:16 your comment isn't exactly friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chand??

    The ongoing rants from one or maybe two Fleming hater is gettiing old.

    None of the negative stuff is true. Fleming is well respected. Fleming won the election, hands down. Much of her support was from former co-workers and people she has had contact with over the years; defense lawyers, police, victims, and regular citizens.

    Somebody is so bitter that their choice didn't make DA they are doing whatever they can to sabotage Fleming. Whomever this is, is a serious loser.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Any posts that point out Fleming's horrid record in County Council or her dishonesty are hateful? I don't hate the woman. I just hate that someone with such disrespect for the law is going to be the DA. Don't know Chand.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maggie destroyed the child abuse services team when she worked in the DAs office and hid public documents from public as county council. I'm suppose to be happy closed government dishonest person is now in power?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 907
    You're either ignorant or malicious or both. Paul destroyed CAST, and turned to Maggie in hopes she could fix it. Too late.
    You all tried this crap during the election. Did you not notice how that went. Sucks to be you. Loser.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And Maggie killed it off completely. This has nothing to do with the election. This has to do with four more years dealing with an inept DA

    ReplyDelete
  18. Maggie's supporters will prop her up no matter how many laws she breaks. It's a a disease

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hopefully next election someone will step up to challenge Fleming who can actually beat her. This DA office needs someone with some principles to fix this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I did not support Maggie. The fact it if Arcata and SoHum would have bothered to show up, we would have had a run off. And a different election result.

    They did not. Next election won't matter if people do not bother to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You bitter pathetic lying losers are just disgusting. It is a real pleasure to think how you will be suffering over the next 8, 12, 16 years, watching in helpless frustration as Fleming prevails over all your grubby little lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your nastiness speaks for itself. Keep doing the losers a favor and exposing what kind of supporters Fleming really has.

      A few decent ones but it isn't you.

      Delete
  22. 8:26 did you also excuse all of Paul's lies?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maggie still hasn't spoken with the current ADA. Not returning calls. That's Gallegos style leadership right there

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nor has she done anything to unite the community by telling her supporters like 8:26 to shut up. She excused those tactics during the election. She continues so now.

      She has not reached out to her opponents or their supporters. All those words about ending polarization were empty promises.

      Delete
  24. Maybe the DA elect doesn't like the company of blog trolls. You're going to fault her for that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Trolls
    You don't get to post lies and falsehoods and then accuse those who call you on it of nastiness. Maggie is better than you, and maybe better than those of us who insist on pointing out your lies, malice, negativity and bitterness.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Using words like trolls is dismissing valid facts. If you could disprove the above, you would.

    Maggie and most of her supporters are incapable of acting anything but arrogant.

    Instead of responding on blogs, your DA elect can either prove that she is not petty and vindictive by her actions. Or she can continue to excuse the nastiness that you used to railroad an election.

    The People in this County deserve a leader who is strong, not someone who excuses bullies like you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. More baseless bullshit from an unhappy troll.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 4:06 nice admission on your part because it is your behavior that is typical of a troll.

    Thanks for enlightening Rose's readers what a troll means.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Valid facts? You people have none. You threw all your garbage at Ms. Fleming, and the voters, with their pocketbooks and with their ballots, saw you for what you were and soundly rejected you. Repeating the same rubbish over and over does not make it true. Though both Goebbels and Lenin got a long way with that tactic, people are wiser now.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No, they're totally not. :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. 7:18 what is hilarious is that you think money and winning a low turnout election means something.

    Fleming and her incompetent band of fools won nothing. Without Bohn and the Sheriff's involvement, she would have lost.

    You smeared Dollison and Firpo. Salzman won the election for you.

    Fleming is a complete failure. Letting you rant and not being able to control you shows she is incapable of management.

    Gallegos is on his way out. Fleming cannot fix the office with a script. She is a loser who put down others to win.

    Just like you. Remember she has to get elected again, to stay in office. So keep ranting.
    You are giving the readers of Rose's blog a good preview of justice Fleming style.


    ReplyDelete
  32. 9:31 you know what they about feeding a troll.
    Let 7:18 have its delusions.

    The fact that it keeps responding to you shows you have validity. No need to belabor the point.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sure, "fleming and her incompetent band of fools won nothing" except, um, the election.
    And the smears were all coming from the firpo/dollison camps.
    And really, "fleming is a complete failure"? She's not even in office yet.
    Sorest losers ever.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 8:55 nice of you to admit you are a sorest loser ever.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.