Some thoughts:
- If I ever become a big shot with a fancy, schmancy office and lots of money and stuff, I don't think I'll hire Marty Burns to be my PR person.
- I'm sure the comments made by Burns caused tremendous distress to Anna Sowers, and even your consultant found them distressing. Even if she really believed those things, she should have kept her mouth shut. What was the point? The reporter was asking her about Anna's proposed Zach's law. (We never did find out the official State's Attorney position on that, incidentally). Maybe Ms. Burns need to go back on her medication.
- Your consultant wonders if Burns was verbalizing some thoughts going through the State's Attorney's office before and/or after the trial, or if she was reflecting the thoughts of her boss, her own thoughts or what.
- It sounds more to this experienced cop like the possible arguments the defense attorneys might have thrown out in negotiations for the plea.
- Sleeping like a baby? How would she know? Betcha , 3-1, Ms. Burns never went to the hospital and never actually saw Zach.
- Comments like hers tend to make people want to leave the city, and wonder why they still live here. This is what the State's Attorney's spokesperson feels/thinks about murder victims and their spouses?!
- At the risk of offending my dear readers, I must say that with the limited evidence the state had, both reading reports at the time and now, they got the best deal one could have hoped to get against the defendants. If Anna really wanted her blood to boil, she would have been granted that at a trial for these bums. The defense attorneys would have had a field day: making fools of the evidence and pointing fingers at each other's clients, and making the police, and lab technicians look foolish (whether they were or not); and perhaps helping their client invent some story about how he actually didn't do it and pointing the finger at someone else; one or more of the "flipped" co-defendants of Trayvon could have reneged on their deal or "forgot" crucial details previously agreed to, or said the police tricked or coerced them. The risks of going to trial were enormous--with a possibility one or more would have been acquitted and/or convicted of very minor charges. See the recent article when an attorney told the Sun "nobody flipped". Huh? I thought the other 3 plead guilty and had agreed to testify at trial against the main player-Trayvon Ramos.
- We have some solace in knowing that very likely Ramos will serve about 30 of his 40 years sentence. In my work with "ex-offenders", it has been consistently the case that violent criminals serve about 75% of their sentences, before getting out on parole. So, he'll be 47 or so when he gets out, and unlikely to be able to get any kind of decent job or housing on his own. In addition, there will be more younger thugs out there ready to do him like he did Zach, since he'll no longer be so young and "tough", but probably as cowardly as ever. And it is quite likely he'll go back to prison within 3 years of his release (on average 53% do). He is also under a suspended sentence.
- And the other thugs will serve about 6 out of their 8 year sentences. And they will all be on parole with suspended sentences. Buz feels a little sorry for the one kid who is in solitary 23 hours a day, when it became common knowledge that he was the one who first broke under police questioning. There's a good chance he'll be beaten or stabbed before he gets released, and may well be murdered after his release. (Of course, all of these guys are prime candidates for getting murdered in Baltimore). Buz feels less sorry, of course, because we know some or all of them were involved in a series of robberies both in the city and county east side. There were probably more than even the cops think, and probably some which weren't reported.
- Don't know much about Jessamy; only saw her at community meetings a couple of times many years ago. However, I don't agree, and think it's unethical for anyone to post her home address--much as you disagree with anything about her. [Actually, I don't like the idea of the state putting everything, including your home address on the web anyway. There's plenty of nuts out there; we don't need to make it any easier for them to express their nuttiness].
- Regardless of Jessamy herself, your consultant has found the vast overwhelming majority of prosecutors in her office to be dedicated public servants in a thankless job for a community that has a huge thankless component. Often the prosecutor has little to work with, as in the Sowers case. {Testimony of co-defendants is shaky ground on which to try a case, particularly in the city}. From what I read, both at the plea and recently, the state had a strong common-sense case and a strong circumstantial case, but with the wrong jury.................??? Who knows what might have happened? Would the defense have found someone to say they saw him "sleeping like a baby" or that his injuries were not consistent with stomping. Remember, it only takes one juror to be swayed by dumb arguments.
- When prosecutors are going for a plea, they almost always discuss it with the victim and/or the victim's family, outlining reasons why, and the risks involved in going to trial. Usually, the family agrees. My understanding is that Anna did not agree. Unfortunately, crime is considered legally to be against the state. In this case, the prosecutors decided to ignore her wishes for a trial and proceeded with a plea bargain, "in the interest of public safety". Part of the bargain would be not to prosecute should Zach die; that's why they were able to get such "long" sentences. So an autopsy was irrelevant at this point; we don't know why Burns is even bringing that up--except, perhaps, to "prove" somehow that the defense attorneys might or might not have been right about the stomping not having occurred? Sheesh. Even if he was just tripped and sustained those injuries, by say, hitting his head on a car bumper, so what. The injuries were caused by the robber-thugs. (Buz doesn't really believe the others just, like, stood around and didn't do anything.)
- In any event, Burns needs to get fired, and get the Douche-bag of the Year award for stupid press comments.
11 comments:
Buz, I agree with you 100% regarding the dangerous of proceeding to trial, and the appropriateness of the punishments received by the defendants based on the situation faced by the SAO.
Every criminal defense lawyer is taught that when nothing is going in your client's favor, when in doubt, pray jury trial. At a jury trial, ANYTHING can happen. The ability to ask leading questions is an extreme advantage that the prosecution does not enjoy in its case-in-chief, but the defense will sit there and blow every crack wide open. The evidence was circumstantial and as you noted, there were no corroborating wittinesses other than co-conspirators. Every defense attorney in Baltimore would be relishing the opportunity to cross examine them impeach them, impeach them some more, and continue to impeach them. It would have been a circus. And as you mentioned, at the time of the sentencing, Zach was still alive, and Mr. Ramos got 40 years. That is a long time. Sure it's not life or the death penalty, but the critics wouldn't last 4 days in the D.O.C. let alone 40 years. And it is NOT the SA prerogative whether or not he gets paroled or released early for diminution credits. If Marylanders want that changed, petition your legislators, but be prepared for an unprecedented wave of prison violence and overcrowding.
If people really want to affect change in the SAO, support the strongest candidate who runs again Madame Jessamy. Contribute both your time and money to the campaign and go out and vote instead of griping on the sidelines.
Thanks, Anonymous! I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with poor ole me.
Thanks, Anonymous! I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with poor ole me.
Most of those who would throw stones, particularly Baltimore Crime readers, have very limited, if any, courtroom experience of legal training. Concepts such as chain of custody, hearsay and reasonable doubt things that they see on Law & Order, not in real life.
Finally, they need to answer the question, what did they want to happen, what did they expect to happen, and what actually happened?
They wanted Mr. Ramos to be executed (an impossibility for the offense he was initially charged with). They expected the case to go to trial, him to be found guilty and receive a life sentence (a path fraught with peril and uncertainty. ). Instead he received a forty year sentence. FORTY years. That's a long time. Not as long as life, but as you mentioned, a less than pleasurable experience to say the least.
What sparked the current outrage, of course, were Ms. Burns' totally unnecessary comments.
A lot of people are upset with the idea of plea bargaining. I can understand that, but if we didn't have plea bargaining, no felon would get to trial within reqired limits and they'd go free. Also, it gets the victims and the state an assured guilty finding for something; usually at least a modest sentence.
I guess in an ideal world, it would be nice to have the accused sit there and squirm and face all the evidence against him/her. But the truth is they don't have much to lose anyway, and usually don't squirm anyhow. In an even better world, the crime wouldn't have been committed in the first place.
anonymous,
40 years is a long time. But how do we know it _really_ is 40 years? Time after time, people get out before finishing their sentences. The other people got 8 years. How long is that, really? 6? 4? less?
Even worse than that, probation appears to be routinely subverted. Every time I read about a horrific crime, the prep is typically a repeat offender UNDER PROBATION yet somehow FREE TO ROAM. I had always thought that if you violate probation, you go to jail to serve the original sentence. Isn't that the deal? Isn't that fair enough?
None of which have anything to do with the State's Attorney. All the SA can do is prosecute or not prosecute the case, and if the defendant is found guilty, recommend a sentence. The SA has no control over diminution credits, parole or the level of detention (home detention, work release, etc.). All the SA can do is request/recommend that a defendant not be paroled or granted work release, but ultimately it is up to the Judge or the parole board, neither of which the SA controls. So if Ramos gets out after 1 year or 10, it's beyond the SA's control. Get a new parole commission and build new prisons.
"Get a new parole commission and build new prisons."
And elect a new legislature that'll toughen sentencing laws. We should do what the Feds did and abolish parole.
anonymous,
The whole system is dysfunctional. We can go around and try to focus blame on one part or another, but every component seems to be utterly broken. IMHO, too much attention is put on the police and NOT ENOUGH on the SA, the courts, and corrections.
More importantly, I think that if we actually carried out appropriate sentencing, it would end up being better for everyone involved, including offenders.
When somebody violates probation, that's like breaking "the deal". They originally got probation to avoid jail time in exchange for "being good". So, what point is probation if it is not taken seriously?
BTW, has anyone ever heard Pat Jessamy speak? She always goes on and on about some bullshit "three-pronged" approach and how her office provides "services" to victims and offenders.
Screw that. The SA should do only ONE thing: Prosecute. The "three prongs" are: PROSECUTE, PROSECUTE, PROSECUTE.
Other organizations can handle the rest and do a better job.
I tend to agree with Helix more---about the clowns gaming the system. I ran into a person last night who wanted me to "give him a list of jobs". Huh?
After questioning, what I found out was: Child Support Enfocement will suspend his driver's license unless he filled in blanks on a form to "prove" that he was looking for a job in order to pay child support. So all he needed was the name, address, and phone number of 15 "employers" that he had "contacted"--and then the would not suspend his license. He told me that he would like to find a janitorial job part-time. He has a full time "under the table" job drug-selling, er, whoops, barbering. But CSE won't accept money from him; he must have a job where they take taxes, and child support and such.
When I suggested he get a legitimate full=time job, he said his was not breaking any laws. I pointed out to him that he was not paying taxes (or child-support at this time), so it really wasn't legitimate.
I ran his name, and guess: He has convictions for murder, 1st degree assault, and now is on probation for 2nd degree assault. He has in the past sued wardens at the City Jail and Eastern Correctional Institution.
But we trust him to present "proof" of his job search. Wonder if anybody checks? And how would they really check, anyway?
Post a Comment