Reply With Quote
Did your law degree and years of practice lead you to this conclusion, yoni?
Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge's murder
He may have just earned himself a subpoena to testify in Loughner's murder trial."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.
Wasn't Eric Holder -- our chief law enforcement officer -- in the room?
Did your law degree and years of practice lead you to this conclusion, yoni?
Yoni... letting no ankle go unbit.
seriously, i don't think a eulogy by a third party is admissible in court
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 o.
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.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 01-13-2011 at 04:03 AM.
Just how many times do you think this guy can be killed, yoni?
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.
Exploring whether or not his statement was informed by federal officials involved in the case in Tucson, is relevant.
seriously, i don't think a eulogy by a third party is admissible in court
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.
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.
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?
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 cons utes 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.
Poll, Roll, it's all the same.
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.
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.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that no, we will not see Obama testify at nutjob's trial.
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.
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.
that's our yoni!
"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.
how stupid can ppl get??
hearsay comes to mind
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 .
Irrelevance comes to mind first.
That's trial lawyers. , 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
