Beth: It is doubtful that you are truly speaking of cases whereby the persons "were in the wrong place at the wrong time. To be clear, a criminal who can become a legal accomplice, under the felony murder law, or more properly, the law of parties, is one who was actually part of the illegal activity, an activity which resulted in a capital murder.
The accomplice is part of the capital murder, even if they did not "pull the trigger", because they were, legally and morally, an accomplice to the criminal activity, just as Bin Laden was, thousands of miles away. It is much more likely that the innocent murder vicitm s were in the right place at the right time - but a bad guy perverted it into the wrong time and place - the murderers turned something right into something wrong. You might end up on death row. Texas Law of Parties: A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense or if, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.
By John Gramlich, Stateline. Beth Cioffoletti. Dudley, I will tell you about the case that I know most intimately, that of TW. I had known TW since he was 5 years old - he was a bright, creative, eager to please child. He was never in any trouble whatsoever at school.
ZERO record of misbehavior of any kind. When he was 18 years old, just before he graduated from High School, he got "mixed up" with some questionable characters. TW had a car and was coerced into driving these characters to a house where they were going to buy marijuana. TW waited outside while they went in to get the marijuana.
- Multiscale Simulations and Mechanics of Biological Materials.
- Urth Chronicles: Subject 22?
- INTRODUCTION TO THE “MODERN ERA” OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES;
- The Eat Well Everyday eCookbook (1).
- Italiano - Grammatica essenziale (Grammatiche essenziali) (Italian Edition);
- 2. Benvenuto Cellini.
- Morally Innocent, Legally Guilty: The Case for Mens Rea Reform!
While they were in there, a young man was shot and killed it wasn't planned, it just happened. TW's parents were not properly advised, legally, and could not believe that their son could be convicted of 1st degree murder, so they refused any plea deals.
TW was in fact convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. This was in Yet all attempts for clemency and pardon have been denied. This is just one story, the one I know most intimately. Under the mandatory sentencing laws of the state of Florida, the judge had only 2 choices in sentencing Taylor: the death penalty or life in prison. Is this justice? Is this reason to condemn this young man to death? Beth: What is TW's name and do you have a link to the appelate or court record? I would need to look at the case and make a determination based upon the facts, which all can see.
Full disclosure, please. When you don't have the court documents, who do you believe? The judge. Judge Maxwell writes in his order. Wells also stated that the co-defendants had two guns, while they were talking about picking up the weed, and that he saw them take the two guns into the house in Cape Canaveral," " Wells also stated that they wore masks when they went into the house so they could hide their identities.
A jury would not believe that the defendant did not know the co-defendants planned to commit a robbery after he saw them entering the house with masks on, carrying guns. Lykkebak defense counsel said the statements are false, citing portions of Mr. Wells' post-arrest interview. Lykkebak writes. Wells could not even see the house. Wells intended to reap the benefits of the robbery. The Court finds that even if co-defendant Kharibe Burgan testified that the co-defendants took advantage of, and intimidated the defendant, and that the defendant did not know about the robbery plans, the result of the trial would have been about the same.
The testimony of the four co-defendants would not overcome the defendant's statement to police. Lykkebak strongly disputes Judge Maxwell's opinion. Lykkebak states. In the arrest interview Mr. Wells said Burgan had Wells drive him to the grocery store, so Burgan could buy some zip-lock bags. Lykkebak argues that Judge Maxwell's ruling improperly relies on a previous opinion from another judge and not on the post-arrest interview and statements by co-defendants whose testimony was previously unavailable.
So you believe the judge? I was at that hearing. Lykkebak did a good job presenting the facts and gross misinterpretation of the case by the prosecution. From my point of view Judge Maxwell was a coward, unable to undo the rulings of previous judges because of political and career considerations.
So you think that it is ok to execute this 18 year old who is still in high school and has no prior criminal or other record of misbehavior? Or to send him to prison for the rest of his life? Beth: As I stated, the problem is that I don't have the trial transcript and as a matter of fact, any neutral party must accept the opinion of a neutral judge, over that of the covicted parties advocate, who is, by definition, not neutral.
In addition, this judge repeated a number of the facts as stated by a prior judge, which as a matter of law and fact, provides a stronger case against Wells and less credibility to defense counsel. Under that scenario, yes, of course I believe the judge. I can see no evidence for your allegation that political or career considerations were part of the judges decsion and I suspect you have no such evidence, other than what appears to be your vested interest in being another advocate for Wells.
Atheists naturally assume immoral people are also atheists | Daily Mail Online
None of this is to say that your side of the story is untrue. However, the opinon I read is supported by two neutral judges and is only rebutted by two advocates for Wells. Both reason and probability makes one side wth the judges, which explains why pardon and clemency efforts have failed, based ONLY upon the limited evidence I have read. If you have court documents of other judicial opinions, that would be helpful.
It is not a matter of me saying what is OK or not. It is a matter of being fully informed, prior to rendering an opinion. We all want truth and justice. In our system it requires admissable facts of evidence. A prior record is, very often, not telling as to guilt.
Cruel, Immoral Behavior Is Not Mental Illness
John Wayne Gacy, as well as a number of additonal serial murderers, had no priors to their being found guilt of their serial murders. Even criminalss with massive prior records can be innocent of other crimes they are charged with. The issue is having all of the facts. For me, that is a requirement, as it should be for all. I think it is the responsible position. All I am asking, Dudley, is if you think that the law is just? A law that allows someone to be executed who is peripheral to a murder?
Taylor's is the one case that I know the best. I know plenty of other cases where there is more or less involvement. A guy drives a friend to a to get cigarettes.
While he is in there the friend shoots the shopkeeper. The friend comes out with his cigarettes and the guy drives away, never even knowing what happened. Two weeks later the guy is arrested and then convicted of 1st degree murder.