The occasional poetic justice...

steingar

steingar

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
29,248
Location
Land of Savages
Display Name
Display name:
steingar
As reported on CNN, guy murders one girl and nearly kills another after raping her. Is convicted of the latter crime but not the former. Thinking he can get away with it due to double jeopardy, he writes a taunting letter to the prosecutor describing the murder in detail. Prosecutor uses letter and now well explained physical evidence to try and convict murderer, who appeals citing double jeopardy. The courts (including the SCOTUS) disagree. Nice to see things work once in awhile.
 
The Courts are right on.

Summarized, my understanding of Virginia law indicates that a defendant commits capital murder when a death results in connection with another felony - say, robbery.

That's what Powell was convicted of in Round 1 - death in connection with robbery and rape of the younger sister. It's that conviction that was reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court; I have no idea why because I haven't read the opinion. The Va. SC also found that there existed no cause to retry Powell.

Then Powell wrote the letter.

The State subsequently recharged him with capital murder. But, this time, the state based the charge not on robbery, but on attempted rape of the murdered victim.

Double jeopardy doesn't bar a second trial on the same transaction, if the factual basis is different. In Round 1, the state had to prove that the murder occurred in connection with a robbery and rape of the younger sister; in Round 2, the state had to prove that murder occurred in connection with an attempted rape of the murdered victim. Totally different facts.

The defendant must have watched that movie with Ashley Judd that didn't really do justice to the clause of the Constitution for which it was named.

Read the first few paragraphs of the following link (the 4th Circuit's opinion, for which the USSC has denied cert.), and decide for yourselves whether this defendant forfeit his right to live.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/083.P.pdf
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The Courts are right on.

Summarized, my understanding of Virginia law indicates that a defendant commits capital murder when a death results in connection with another felony - say, robbery.

That's what Powell was convicted of in Round 1 - death in connection with robbery and rape of the younger sister. It's that conviction that was reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court; I have no idea why because I haven't read the opinion. The Va. SC also found that there existed no cause to retry Powell.

Then Powell wrote the letter.

The State subsequently recharged him with capital murder. But, this time, the state based the charge not on robbery, but on attempted rape of the murdered victim.

Double jeopardy doesn't bar a second trial on the same transaction, if the factual basis is different. In Round 1, the state had to prove that the murder occurred in connection with a robbery and rape of the younger sister; in Round 2, the state had to prove that murder occurred in connection with an attempted rape of the murdered victim. Totally different facts.

The defendant must have watched that movie with Ashley Judd that didn't really do justice to the clause of the Constitution for which it was named.

Read the first few paragraphs of the following link (the 4th Circuit's opinion, for which the USSC has denied cert.), and decide for yourselves whether this defendant forfeit his right to live.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/083.P.pdf
Click to expand...

P.S. - in my opinion, while there are other arguments that defense attorneys could have made that I feel would have been better, those arguments would still have lost under the facts here.

So, speaking in terms of strict issues of law, this is not an unlawful result.

Whether it's appropriate is, of course, a question for the SZ. I'll keep my thoughts on that to myself in here. :)
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
...

That's what Powell was convicted of in Round 1 - death in connection with robbery and rape of the younger sister. It's that conviction that was reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court; I have no idea why because I haven't read the opinion. The Va. SC also found that there existed no cause to retry Powell.

....

Double jeopardy doesn't bar a second trial on the same transaction, if the factual basis is different. In Round 1, the state had to prove that the murder occurred in connection with a robbery and rape of the younger sister; in Round 2, the state had to prove that murder occurred in connection with an attempted rape of the murdered victim. Totally different facts.
....

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/083.P.pdf
Click to expand...

David, I haven't read the entire Opinion but read the last line of page 6 and top of page 7 It looks like the guy was convicted of Capital Murder with a gradation of Rape /Attempted Rape and Sodomy of the older sister but that the SCOVA overturned the capital conviction because the trial court improperly allowed the above two gradations to be added after the grand jury and of course he was aquitted of the Robbery. So it seems like he was tried on those charges. The decision is a bit confusing in that regard.

Whats your thought on that.

Now as for the Defendant, wow that guy is pure evil. I've represented a lot of criminal defendants in my day and most of the bad ones are just scum or druggies or really angry people or the like. Those that are pure evil are an entire different set of defendants. The are the truly truly scary ones. This guy is one of them.
 
AdamZ said:
David, I haven't read the entire Opinion but read the last line of page 6 and top of page 7 It looks like the guy was convicted of Capital Murder with a gradation of Rape /Attempted Rape and Sodomy of the older sister but that the SCOVA overturned the capital conviction because the trial court improperly allowed the above two gradations to be added after the grand jury and of course he was aquitted of the Robbery. So it seems like he was tried on those charges. The decision is a bit confusing in that regard.

....
Click to expand...

My impression was that the Trial 1 gradations (I'd actually never heard that word before) were robbery and actual rape of the younger sister, but that the SC reversed on that procedural issue (which is hardly a technicality, for those who might wonder). And the Va. SC then said that, being as the rape of the younger sister occurred after the murder of the older, that couldn't relied on as the gradation.

But I don't really know - I just skimmed it. :)

Now as for the Defendant, wow that guy is pure evil. I've represented a lot of criminal defendants in my day and most of the bad ones are just scum or druggies or really angry people or the like. Those that are pure evil are an entire different set of defendants. The are the truly truly scary ones. This guy is one of them.
Click to expand...

Being relatively rural, I've seen two like that. Seen a bunch of crazies, a bunch of otherwise decent people who made bad decisions while drinking/drugged/etc. But only two that were evil to the core - and you can tell the ones that are. You know what I mean, I'm sure.
 
woodstock said:
This is why I don't have a problem with the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Even for a guy like this I have a problem with the death penalty. Let him molder in jail with the others of his kind. There has been at least one innocent victim executed that I know of, and that's one too many for me. YMMV.
 
I don't want to pay for him to molder in jail... if you want to keep him alive, make him work to cover his cost to live.
 
Missa said:
I don't want to pay for him to molder in jail... if you want to keep him alive, make him work to cover his cost to live.
Click to expand...

Bill his family for the cost, since its their fault they raised a monster.
 
steingar said:
Hard to believe, but it costs more to execute convicted felons.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I view it as a bootstrap argument.

The reason it costs more is because death penalty opponents will use any and all means in their oppositions. This includes petitions and appeals that are utterly frivolous, that serve no purpose except to cause delay and to cause increased expense.

Having caused both delay and expense, death penalty opponents then cite to the same as evidence that it's better to just use life incarceration, because then we won't have to deal with the delay and the expense.

I don't expect anyone outside the profession to be aware of that, but there it is.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
My impression was that the Trial 1 gradations (I'd actually never heard that word before) were robbery and actual rape of the younger sister, but that the SC reversed on that procedural issue (which is hardly a technicality, for those who might wonder). And the Va. SC then said that, being as the rape of the younger sister occurred after the murder of the older, that couldn't relied on as the gradation.

But I don't really know - I just skimmed it. :)
Click to expand...

Go back and read the top of page 7 and PM me what you think or post it. It has me perplexed.



Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Being relatively rural, I've seen two like that. Seen a bunch of crazies, a bunch of otherwise decent people who made bad decisions while drinking/drugged/etc. But only two that were evil to the core - and you can tell the ones that are. You know what I mean, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

David I know EXACTLY what you mean.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
That's true, but I view it as a bootstrap argument.

The reason it costs more is because death penalty opponents will use any and all means in their oppositions. This includes petitions and appeals that are utterly frivolous, that serve no purpose except to cause delay and to cause increased expense.

Having caused both delay and expense, death penalty opponents then cite to the same as evidence that it's better to just use life incarceration, because then we won't have to deal with the delay and the expense.

I don't expect anyone outside the profession to be aware of that, but there it is.
Click to expand...
Like the argument against nuclear power....
 
>I don't expect anyone outside the profession to be aware of that,
>but there it is.

It's not that hard for non-lawyers to understand that.
 
Bob Noel said:
It's not that hard for non-lawyers to understand that.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to suggest that it is - sorry if I came off as patronizing!

What I meant was that it's not likely that non-lawyers have had the opportunity to read the things that come into a court. Some of them just leave you scratching your head - it goes far beyond merely grasping at straws.
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ignoring the legal discussion and the death penalty discussion, I just have to laugh. What a stupid jerk. Man am I glad justice was served!
 
Unfortunately, dealing with nuclear reactors and capitol punishments have some distinct similarities. If the reactor is built wrong a calamity can result. If an innocent man is executed by the state it is a calamity of lesser proportions, although having the state murder one of its residents in cold blood is calamitous (should the prosecutor, judge, jury, governor and all parties responsible now have to defend themselves against being accomplices to murder?). So both have significant proofreading functions. The reactor, levels of review to certify that it won't blow up. The death row inmate, to make certain that proceedings were on the up and up. And despite all this, a reactor badly malfunctioned and an innocent man was put to death. Hence these reviews and appeals serve an important function, since in our justice system we consider it far more important to not punish the innocent.
 
steingar said:
... Hence these reviews and appeals serve an important function, since in our justice system we consider it far more important to not punish the innocent.
Click to expand...

No doubt, and I agree fully.

But, there's a significant difference when the appeal/review is based on fabricated "facts."
 
steingar said:
How does one distinguish fabrications from reality without a legal proceeding counselor?
Click to expand...

Taking 5 minutes to read what has been sent in - they're obvious on their faces.

But, you're right - these things are taken seriously because of the gravity of the situation. Unfortunately, because all things are taken seriously, it's setting up a situation for abuse.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Taking 5 minutes to read what has been sent in - they're obvious on their faces.

But, you're right - these things are taken seriously because of the gravity of the situation. Unfortunately, because all things are taken seriously, it's setting up a situation for abuse.
Click to expand...

I can blame no one for abusing a system when it is their only defense against being executed. Better to forego execution altogether. The thought of a murderer being in one of America's prisons is punishment enough. And if it turns out that inflamed passions lead to a wrongful conviction (crimes that inflame passions are most commonly those for which prosecutors seek capitol punishment) some degree of redress can be made.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I didn't mean to suggest that it is - sorry if I came off as patronizing!

What I meant was that it's not likely that non-lawyers have had the opportunity to read the things that come into a court. Some of them just leave you scratching your head - it goes far beyond merely grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

fwiw - I didn't feel you were patronizing.
 
steingar said:
I can blame no one for abusing a system when it is their only defense against being executed. Better to forego execution altogether. The thought of a murderer being in one of America's prisons is punishment enough. And if it turns out that inflamed passions lead to a wrongful conviction (crimes that inflame passions are most commonly those for which prosecutors seek capitol punishment) some degree of redress can be made.
Click to expand...

God'll get it right in the end, right?
 
My problem with the death penalty is that it's too good for him. The guy's death should be slow and involve lots of pain and suffering. Put him through what he put others through. Definitely don't let him live, though, because that always means he has the opportunity to be released and repeat his crime.

Question to the lawyers: How do you defend someone who you know is pure evil? I couldn't do it, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, especially if I defended him successfully.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My problem with the death penalty is that it's too good for him. The guy's death should be slow and involve lots of pain and suffering. Put him through what he put others through. Definitely don't let him live, though, because that always means he has the opportunity to be released and repeat his crime.

Question to the lawyers: How do you defend someone who you know is pure evil? I couldn't do it, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, especially if I defended him successfully.
Click to expand...

Point 1: I'd rather not spend the money on him, personally (referencing above point that the death penalty would be cheaper if we all followed Texas's lead).

Point 2: You can get some very expensive pillows with all the money that is made defending murderers. I think that might lend to easier nights sleeping.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
...

Question to the lawyers: How do you defend someone who you know is pure evil? I couldn't do it, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, especially if I defended him successfully.
Click to expand...

This is obviously a question that comes up all the time. The bottom line is that the defense attorney is there to see that the defendant receives a fair trial - that the state meets its burden, that the law is followed, that the sentence is appropriate, etc.

I view criminal defense work not so much as defending the individual client (though the obligation is obviously to the individual client), but more as ensuring that our chosen political system is honored.

If the state can't prove its case, the state can prove its case. The state has to meet a high burden to do so. A defense attorney's job isn't so much to prevent the state from doing that, as it is to require the state to do that. If the state can do it, that's fine - the burden has been met, and the law will be followed.

But, if the state can't do it - because the evidence isn't there to support a conviction, be it due to the incredibility of a police officer, the misapprehension of a witness, or even the state's failure to timely prosecute a case - then our chosen form of governance demands that the defendant not be incarcerated. Google, for instance, Ankarette Twynyho, to see why we have chosen that system.

So, here's what I'm trying to say. Yes, a defense attorney will defend people whose crimes are reprehensible. Yet, regardless of the crimes a person may have committed, regardless of actual guilt, that person is still entitled to all of the rights that a factually innocent person is - and the defense attorney is, quite seriously, the only person who will attempt to see that those rights are honored.

I'm as comfortable arguing for a death sentence as I am for acquittal - all I care about is what the law requires for the particular facts I have in front of me.
 
I can see that argument and agree that it be important that the system be fulfilled with people getting a fair trial in accordance with the law. For me personally, some people I just wouldn't be able to defend. But that's why you're good at your job and I respect you for it. I would not be good at your job, but that's why I have my job. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I can see that argument and agree that it be important that the system be fulfilled with people getting a fair trial in accordance with the law. For me personally, some people I just wouldn't be able to defend. But that's why you're good at your job and I respect you for it. I would not be good at your job, but that's why I have my job. :)
Click to expand...

Be careful - don't presume I'm good at it! :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Question to the lawyers: How do you defend someone who you know is pure evil? I couldn't do it, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, especially if I defended him successfully.
Click to expand...


If I had a dollar for everytime someone asks me that I'd have my own plane:D. Seriously its a question I get a lot. Believe it or not Ted its the ones that we truly belive are innocent that are hardest to defend. Well not the hardest to defend but the most stressful cases. It magnifies the pressure on the attorney tenfold.

But to answer your question more directly when an attorney represents a client in a Criminal matter he/she is also representing the Constitution in a way. He or she must operate with in our judicial system in order for that system to work. It is very very important that the determination of guilt come from a finder or fact as intended by the system and our laws. That finder of fact is either a Judge or a Jury. If attorneys start deciding that someone shouldn't be defended because the person is evil or guilty then that destroys the integrity of the system. The participants in the Judicial system MUST fulfill their roles with diligence. If they attorney makes the decison that the person shouldn't be defended then where do we draw the line. We must fulfill our roles for the justice system to work.

The fact that an attorney represents a guilty person or someone who is evil does not in anyway mean that the attorney condones or is even indifferent to the crime or accused he or she can really destest the person but is duty bound to do his or her best to represent them. Those of us that take these issues seriously feel that we honor our Judicial system by providing top notch representation even to the most dispised of defendants
 
SkyHog said:
....
Point 2: You can get some very expensive pillows with all the money that is made defending murderers. I think that might lend to easier nights sleeping.
Click to expand...

In reality Nick most folks accused of Murder are represented either by the Public Defenders office or in the case where I practice by private attorneys who are apponted by the court to work on a specific case for what equates to pennys on the dollar.
 
AdamZ said:
In reality Nick most folks accused of Murder are represented either by the Public Defenders office or in the case where I practice by private attorneys who are apponted by the court to work on a specific case for what equates to pennys on the dollar.
Click to expand...

Robert Shapiro, Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey made very, very successful lives before OJ Simpson came along...just sayin'. Not calling out all lawyers at all, but truthfully, to defend some of the scum out there, the lawyers should be, and are, paid very handsomely for their soul in return.
 
Nick:

Granted, I don't practice in the criminal defense realm, but I fully and completely endorse Mssrs. Taylor's and Zucker's comments above.

Think of it this way: you have two defendants, charged with two crimes of a similar character. One's guilty as hell, did it on purpose and enjoyed it; the other, well, he was at home in bed, no alibi, no proof, just a swearing match - but the evidence against him looks just terrible, just as bad as the first guy! Who decides when a defendant doesn't get a full and vigorous defense, one that will flush out the falsehoods?

I have heard people before say, in effect, that it would be OK to reduce the quality of defense some accused persons get, because they're accused of really bad crimes, odds are that most accused are guilty (and that's largely true), and if a few innocent people get convicted in the process - well, that's a small price to pay in exchange for the presumptive benefit of less crime.

Which works *great* unless you happen to be the innocent guy who's falsely accused of the morally outrageous crime.

For me, it comes down to this: when the system provides for the vigorous defense of accused persons, it provides a much greater assurance that those convicted, really are guilty! The system has to be credible, from the start, in order for the rule of law to prevail, for laws to be respected and to have the proper effect of deterring crime.
 
AdamZ said:
If I had a dollar for everytime someone asks me that I'd have my own plane:D. Seriously its a question I get a lot. Believe it or not Ted its the ones that we truly belive are innocent that are hardest to defend. Well not the hardest to defend but the most stressful cases. It magnifies the pressure on the attorney tenfold.
Click to expand...

That I believe, because if you lose the case and the person is innocent, that person is receiving unjust punishment.

But to answer your question more directly when an attorney represents a client in a Criminal matter he/she is also representing the Constitution in a way. He or she must operate with in our judicial system in order for that system to work. It is very very important that the determination of guilt come from a finder or fact as intended by the system and our laws. That finder of fact is either a Judge or a Jury. If attorneys start deciding that someone shouldn't be defended because the person is evil or guilty then that destroys the integrity of the system. The participants in the Judicial system MUST fulfill their roles with diligence. If they attorney makes the decison that the person shouldn't be defended then where do we draw the line. We must fulfill our roles for the justice system to work.

The fact that an attorney represents a guilty person or someone who is evil does not in anyway mean that the attorney condones or is even indifferent to the crime or accused he or she can really destest the person but is duty bound to do his or her best to represent them. Those of us that take these issues seriously feel that we honor our Judicial system by providing top notch representation even to the most dispised of defendants
Click to expand...

This is why you, Spike, and David have your jobs and I'm an engineer. :)

I can understand. Most of what I do has an impact on lives in some way, shape, or form. A bad engineering decision can result in death. Failure to complete an animal rescue mission almost certainly will result in death (especially if I make a bad go decision).
 
steingar said:
Even for a guy like this I have a problem with the death penalty. Let him molder in jail with the others of his kind. There has been at least one innocent victim executed that I know of, and that's one too many for me. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I agree that the death penalty should ONLY be applied where there is absolutely 0 doubt - not even reasonable doubt - ABSOLUTELY none.

And in this case, the guy has just ensured that there was, indeed, ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT.

He has lost his right to his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top