-
Well, this would be a shame.
Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge's murder
Quote:
"Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and rose to become Arizona's chief federal judge," Obama told the crowd at the University of Arizona. Roll's "colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say, 'Hi,' to his representative."
In the complaint supporting Loughner's arrest, federal prosecutors argue that Roll wasn't simply seeking to pay a social call on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) when he showed up at the community outreach event where the shooting spree took place Saturday. Prosecutors and the FBI insist that Roll "was engaged in official duties" because he wanted to talk to Giffords and her staffers about problems with a surging caseload in federal courts in Arizona, particularly along the Mexican border.
Loughner's alleged killing of Roll may only be a crime under federal law if Roll was on business and not merely stopping by to say hi to a friend. The death penalty is likely available to the feds anyway, because of the death of Giffords's aide Gabriel Zimmerman. However, multiple murders are an additional aggravating factor that could lead to the death penalty under federal law, as is the killing of a federal judge when carrying out his official duties.
He may have just earned himself a subpoena to testify in Loughner's murder trial.
Wasn't Eric Holder -- our chief law enforcement officer -- in the room?
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Did your law degree and years of practice lead you to this conclusion, yoni?
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Yoni... letting no ankle go unbit.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
:lol :lol
seriously, i don't think a eulogy by a third party is admissible in court
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
The President should never have tried to humanize a federal judge in honoring his memory.
Business, business, and nothing but business.
Seriously -- I'll be very interested to see an attorney argue to federal judges that the assassination of a federal judge at a political event for a federal official cannot be prosecuted as a federal crime because that judge happened to be returning from mass and the President off-handedly suggested in a eulogy that the judge merely intended to say hello.
Somehow, I'm skeptical that federal judges will narrowly construe the very statute that makes a murder of a federal judge severely punishable. Maybe that's just me.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Just how many times do you think this guy can be killed, yoni?
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FromWayDowntown
The President should never have tried to humanize a federal judge in honoring his memory.
Business, business, and nothing but business.
Seriously -- I'll be very interested to see an attorney argue to federal judges that the assassination of a federal judge at a political event for a federal official cannot be prosecuted as a federal crime because that judge happened to be returning from mass and the President off-handedly suggested in a eulogy that the judge merely intended to say hello.
Somehow, I'm skeptical that federal judges will narrowly construe the very statute that makes a murder of a federal judge severely punishable. Maybe that's just me.
I thought you knew attorneys. That's not narrowly construing, it's an essential element to the crime.
Look, the nut isn't going anywhere and he'll be tried for the murder of the judge but, the point being made is that, yes, a good attorney is going to look for anything in zealously defending his client.
If Obama was right, then the elements of the complaint are not.
Don't tell me a defense attorney is going to show deference just because it was the President who revealed the discrepancy.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainwreck2100
:lol :lol
seriously, i don't think a eulogy by a third party is admissible in court
Exploring whether or not his statement was informed by federal officials involved in the case in Tucson, is relevant.
Look, I merely noted the story and felt is would be unfortunate. I hope it doesn't happen. Judge Poll deserves to have the full measure of justice for the crime committed against him.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
I thought you knew attorneys. That's not narrowly construing, it's an essential element to the crime.
Look, the nut isn't going anywhere and he'll be tried for the murder of the judge but, the point being made is that, yes, a good attorney is going to look for anything in zealously defending his client.
If Obama was right, then the elements of the complaint are not.
Don't tell me a defense attorney is going to show deference just because it was the President who revealed the discrepancy.
Too bad Obama was neither the only nor the first person who said the judge was just stopping by -- but you still would have had no point.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
I thought you knew attorneys. That's not narrowly construing, it's an essential element to the crime.
Look, the nut isn't going anywhere and he'll be tried for the murder of the judge but, the point being made is that, yes, a good attorney is going to look for anything in zealously defending his client.
If Obama was right, then the elements of the complaint are not.
Don't tell me a defense attorney is going to show deference just because it was the President who revealed the discrepancy.
why would a defense attorney zealously defend a client on one charge knowing full well that the client will probably get a death penalty for a separate charge?
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
I thought you knew attorneys. That's not narrowly construing, it's an essential element to the crime.
Look, the nut isn't going anywhere and he'll be tried for the murder of the judge but, the point being made is that, yes, a good attorney is going to look for anything in zealously defending his client.
If Obama was right, then the elements of the complaint are not.
Don't tell me a defense attorney is going to show deference just because it was the President who revealed the discrepancy.
Oh, I'm sure the killer's attorney will explore that as a possibility; I'm not familiar enough with the statute to know what permits the federal government to prosecute a person for killing a federal official, but if the elements are what you claim them to be, any good attorney would challenge that element. I don't think President Obama's speech makes that somehow more likely.
But I also think that there's a certain pragmatism to American jurisprudence, particularly in the federal courts. If there's a chance for the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to say that a federal judge who stops by a political rally "is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties," such that his assassination is an offense, I don't think they're going to take a hard line on what constitutes engagement in or on account of performing official duties. It's one of their brethren who has been killed and I don't think, when asked whether what he was doing falls within the purview of the statute, that they're going to say anything other than that his visit qualifies as official business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I hope it doesn't happen. Judge Poll deserves to have the full measure of justice for the crime committed against him.
Poll, Roll, it's all the same.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
I thought you knew attorneys. That's not narrowly construing, it's an essential element to the crime.
Look, the nut isn't going anywhere and he'll be tried for the murder of the judge but, the point being made is that, yes, a good attorney is going to look for anything in zealously defending his client.
If Obama was right, then the elements of the complaint are not.
Don't tell me a defense attorney is going to show deference just because it was the President who revealed the discrepancy.
FWD is talking about a judge's interpretation and you're talking about a defense attorney. There's seem to be some disconnect there somewhere.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
I heard that on the news driving in and it was a "face palm" moment for me. Ridiculous to nit-pick the speech like that and insinuate it will affect the outcome of the killers trial.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that no, we will not see Obama testify at nutjob's trial.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
FWD is talking about a judge's interpretation and you're talking about a defense attorney. There's seem to be some disconnect there somewhere.
Indeed.
The killer's attorney is free to make whatever arguments he wishes; a federal judge is free to reject that argument if he or she believes it ignores the purposes and intent of the statute.
Since other federal judges are going to be the people reviewing that judge's conclusion, and since all of those federal judges are persons who are intended to be protected by the statute, my guess is that the federal judges are going to construe the statute quite broadly.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
When I worked for the US Government- I was acting in an officially capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The terms of my employment were hammered into me as such that I not forget that. I imagine Federal judges are the same way.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
When I worked for the US Government- I was acting in an officially capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The terms of my employment were hammered into me as such that I not forget that. I imagine Federal judges are the same way.
I certainly would imagine that other federal judges will see it that way.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
I heard that on the news driving in and it was a "face palm" moment for me. Ridiculous to nit-pick the speech like that and insinuate it will affect the outcome of the killers trial.
that's our yoni!
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
"I was acting in an officially capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year"
Activist troll Scalia goes to and speaks at extreme right wing conservative POLITICAL conferences, and is apparently thinks he's not a SCOTUS judge 24x7.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
:lol a judge working on saturday?
how stupid can ppl get??
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Why is there such a thing as a federal murder charge? Is the murder of a federal employee greater than the murder of a non-federal employee? That's the message I'm getting from this...he killed 6 people. Period. Death is too easy, taunt him and make the rest of his paranoid existence Hell.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oh, Gee!!
hearsay comes to mind
Irrelevance comes to mind first.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
George Gervin's Afro
that's our yoni!
That's trial lawyers. Hell, it was probably a lawyer that noticed. If they think it'll gain them notoriety, they'll try it.
Subpoena Obama, his speechwriters, and anyone who talked to the White House about the case.
If it's the difference between his client being found guilty of murder and murder of a federal official, they're obligated to provide the best defense possible.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
That's trial lawyers. Hell, it was probably a lawyer that noticed. If they think it'll gain them notoriety, they'll try it.
Subpoena Obama, his speechwriters, and anyone who talked to the White House about the case.
If it's the difference between his client being found guilty of murder and murder of a federal official, they're obligated to provide the best defense possible.
And which precedent makes you think your legal gambit of subpoenaing the President of the United States to testify in a case with which he has nothing at all to do, counselor?
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Well that was, unsurprisingly, much ado about nothing --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Federal Statement of Probable Cause; U.S. v. Loughner
On or about January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords hosted a pre-announced event entitled "Congress On Your Corner," at a Safeway store at 7170 Oracle Road. Congresswoman Giffords represents the Eighth Congressional District in Southern Arizona. The office of Congresswoman Giffords has publicized the event in advance, including by e-mail and telephonic announcements. Your affiant states that Congresswoman Giffords' staff at the event included Gabriel Zimmerman, Rob Barber, and Pamela Simon, who are employees of the United States, all of whom attended to assist Congresswoman Giffords in her official duties. On January 9, 2011, your affiant spoke with U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, who stated that the Honorable John M. Roll, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, had worked with Congresswoman Giffords within the last several months to resolve issues related to the volume of cases filed in the District of Arizona. Judge Roll was notified about Congresswoman Giffords' event telephonically on or about January 7, 2011. having spoken to Pia Carusone, the Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Giffords in Washington D.C., U.S. Marshal Gonzales reports that Ron Barber, a staff person for Congresswoman Giffords who was present at the event, stated that Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues related to the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support that Congresswoman Giffords had given. Your affiant reviewed a digital surveillance video depicting the events at the Safeway; in the video, Judge Roll is seen speaking for several minutes with Mr. Barber.
It's probably best to stick with the developed facts in sworn affidavits rather than the shorthand used in a public eulogy.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FromWayDowntown
Well that was, unsurprisingly, much ado about nothing --
It's probably best to stick with the developed facts in sworn affidavits rather than the shorthand used in a public eulogy.
Look, I'm not going to go Nbadan on you. I read the statement a couple of days ago and am familiar with how the U. S. Marshall established Judge Roll was on official business.
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I'm growing increasing dubious the premise I presented in the opening post is ever going to come about -- in part, due to things you and others have said in here -- but, some lawyers (and all he has to do is end up with the right one) will do just about anything to 1) become nationally famous and 2) win.
I'm done pushing this wagon, you win.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I heard Obama say he was just there to visit...
am I going to get a subpoena too?
that would ruin my day.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blake
I heard Obama say he was just there to visit...
am I going to get a subpoena too?
that would ruin my day.
Your missives aren't informed by a staff who assembles the items they will put into your speeches by calling other people, asking for information, fact-checking, and then including those statements your speeches.
What you say isn't a product of the efforts of a staff.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Your missives aren't informed by a staff who assembles the items they will put into your speeches by calling other people, asking for information, fact-checking, and then including those statements your speeches.
What you say isn't a product of the efforts of a staff.
FWD has already pretty clearly laid it out. Really no need to discuss this further.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Your missives aren't informed by a staff who assembles the items they will put into your speeches by calling other people, asking for information, fact-checking, and then including those statements your speeches.
What you say isn't a product of the efforts of a staff.
What you say is pretty stupid.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blake
FWD has already pretty clearly laid it out. Really no need to discuss this further.
I know, hence, my "you win" statement. You're the one that continued the conversation.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
I know, hence, my "you win" statement. You're the one that continued the conversation.
When I realized it, I ended it. Hence my "FWD has already pretty clearly laid it out. Really no need to discuss this further" statement.
I do, however, like this conversation about how the conversation has ended.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Look, I'm not going to go Nbadan on you. I read the statement a couple of days ago and am familiar with how the U. S. Marshall established Judge Roll was on official business.
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I'm growing increasing dubious the premise I presented in the opening post is ever going to come about -- in part, due to things you and others have said in here -- but, some lawyers (and all he has to do is end up with the right one) will do just about anything to 1) become nationally famous and 2) win.
I'm done pushing this wagon, you win.
To be fair, I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree that there are some lawyers who would press this issue (albeit without any real substantive basis for doing so). Given the identity of his counsel and her apparent unwillingness to use a criminal defense as a means to aggrandize herself, I don't think this is a particularly likely result in this case. She has managed to defend high-profile defendants without making a spectacle of herself.
But your concern isn't completely unfounded -- at least in some cases.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpDumper
Irrelevance comes to mind first.
That is usually my first reaction to Yoni's threads.
-
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Look, I'm not going to go Nbadan on you. I read the statement a couple of days ago and am familiar with how the U. S. Marshall established Judge Roll was on official business.
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I'm growing increasing dubious the premise I presented in the opening post is ever going to come about -- in part, due to things you and others have said in here -- but, some lawyers (and all he has to do is end up with the right one) will do just about anything to 1) become nationally famous and 2) win.
I'm done pushing this wagon, you win.
Not if the attorney risks getting sanctioned for making the argument. And from the looks of it, there seems to be no basis in fact for the claim that the judge wasn't on official business.
