Robert Blake-NOT Guilty!

Unfortunately, this is not quite the end of the story. A sister and daughter of the deceased are filing civil charges against Blake-not that I am surprised.

My brain tells me this is not double jeopardy, which is against the constitution, but it ends up looking like "I can't convince a whole jury, so I'll just try to take what I can from you with 1+50% of a jury.

There are those who think OJ got the next best thing in a civil case. I did not hear every word of either case so I cannot say how I would have voted on a jury, but the ineptness of the prosecution in both cases is pretty clear.
 
I heard him on TV yesterday. He may be short of a few dollars at the moment but I reckon by the time he finishes suing media groups he will have some revenge.

To bad some of the journalists cannot be swung off the freeway bridge.
 
The main difference between a civil and a criminal trial is: A criminal trial is (depending on the state) prima facia, which means loosely facts before you, or, beyond resonable doubt and no hearsay allowed. Per se means basically that hearsay is allowed and you just have to show that the most likely scenario is the one to beleive, or "let the jury fill in the blanks."
The criminal courts are set up in part to protect the innocent from wrong prosecution and you have to be as sure as possible without a hint of innocense before you convict. If you don't have the lawyer or the bucks then you will not get the voice to tell the jury this and a lot of innocent people go to jail.
Civil court is somewhat of an equaliser or the "common sense" part. You can make someone pay without taking their corporal freedom away. That way if someone really is innocent and the jury goes against them then the injustice only cost them their livelyhood (can't spell).
 
Very simple, if you have the cash you go free, equal justice for all, for all that
have money. Our court system like many things have become a joke. :barf:
 
Martha was given a sentence but it was being appealed. She's the one that decided she'd do the time now. She's a business woman and saw the advantages of going to jail. She went into jail as a multi millionair, but came out a billionair.
Plus, the last I heard she's going to do a reality show based on her house arrest.
I guess I'm one of the few that believes there are three standards of justice. One for the rich and powerful, one for the average American, and one for the poor.
How many poor or middle class Americans being charged with first degree murder would be given house arrest awaiting trial?
 
Where I live there was a kid that was charged with first degree and he still got out on bail ($50,000). But then again his dad was a high ranking cop in the county. It also depends on who you know of importance as well as the money. Or luck.
Don't remember who the famous guy who said it but he said that the American system is terrible but it's also the best one in the world.
 
"That way if someone really is innocent and the jury goes against them then the injustice only cost them their livelyhood"

Does this NOT sound like a tailor made set of circumstances for gold diggers?

I understand the intent, but after a jury trial, it does not seem fair to take the person to court for the same circumstances yet again. I understand you only pay money, but check it out:

You shoot an armed intruder in your home, and he dies as a result of the injury. A grand jury convenes, and you are charged with murder. You of course hire a lawyer to defend yourself. The case will likely take a couple of years, after which you have lost your livelyhood. The jury finds you innocent of the charges.
Now comes the greiving parents of scumbag. They file suit in a civil court for violation of the deceased's civil rights. Back to court you go, tying your time and money up further. This is NOT justice. Rather, its a thinly disguised double jeopardy.
 
(Lets see if Michael J's millions get him off, he's his own worst witness because he looks like a freak show.) He better hope he has a predominatly black jury.
 
David Nancarrow,
Wasn't defending the system I was just defining it. But personally I would rather have a system that allowed me to be free and broke instead of trapped in a small room for the rest of my life for something I didn't do. Far from perfect but at least you could declare bankruptcy or move to another country (or Florida like O.J.) and start over. After all, the money is nothing compared to the mental torture of being falsely accused and facing jail for something you didn't do (I speak of expereince with the falsely accused and facing jail part). You're absolutely right though about: It is a setup for gold diggers. Of course someone sued could clog up the system even more and counter sue. That way we as taxpayers pay for it too.
 
Oh, I figured your intent, Novus. And for that matter, the ability to file suit in civil court is a good idea. I just hate the fact that its being abused so badly.
 
Post Script:

DA has tried 49 murder cases and won 48 convictions. This is her only loss. She was absolutely incredulous! Jury says the stuntmen weren't believable due to history of substantial drug abuse and delusional behavior (One indicating the police were tunneling under his house and the government was watching him via satellite).

I wonder how much research was done on the murder weapon; tracing and so forth. Blake didn't have any powder residue on his shooting hand following the murder and only 2 grains of lead were lifted from it. Coulda been wearing a latex glove which was later ditched. When did he buy the P-38? From whom? Where did he keep it? How often did he shoot it? What type of ammunition did he use? When did he notice it was missing? Did he report it missing at the time? Was it registered to him or did he acquire it during a time when a DROS was not required? Lotsa murder weapon questions left unanswered, at least from what has been reported. I wasn't a juror. I wasn't there. But I sure would like to know.
 
Is it just me or do an unusual number of the most of the controversial court decisions seem to come from CA??

OJ, now Blake, Course MJ is still in action but Im sure that will be controversial. I don't remember how much if anything the courts had to do with gay marriage but I remember a CA mayor was right in the middle of it all.


x6ngrimace025pq.jpg
 
I have a feeling he is guilty, but you guys have made some good points how there are enough problems with the case to acquit him.
 
sea of grass

old Spencer Tracy movie..opening scene...Spencer is lawyer sitting next to his obviously cowboy client who is charged with killing a farmer who was fencing the open range. The jury comes out and delivers its verdict...
"We the jury find the cowboy what shot the farmer, NOT GUILTY"
it's the beauty of the jury system I suppose that fallible people judge
fallible people...otherwise, we could do this by computer I guess.
 
All of us who were not on the jury can't possibly make an accurate determination of Blake's guilt or innocence, because all we heard was the inept yammering of the twits in the media; we did not hear or see one whit of actual evidence against or for Blake. The first rule is: Take what you hear from the media with a dump truck load of salt. They will sensationalize whatever tidbits they decide to put out EVERY time to sell more papers, magazines or TV ad time. They care more about the money than they do the truth.

Prosecutors have unlimited resources, monetary and otherwise to bring to bear against the accused. When the accused can hire $10 million worth of legal defense, the prosecutors cry "foul." Exactly why is it unfair when the playing field is leveled??

It is even worse for the accused when a "public defender" is appointed because the accused cannot afford an attorney. There was a magazine article awhile back addressing this issue. The magazine intervieved "public defenders" in the Indianapolis area. They found that the PDs were spread so thin that in most instances, the only time for preparation they had was to read thru the case file while waiting in the hall for their accused's trial to begin! But THAT is just fine with the state!!

The only conclusion that can be reached, given the above is this: The business of the state is to SECURE CONVICTIONS, not to ensure that the accused has a fair trial and DEFENSE EQUAL TO THE PROSECUTION'S RESOURCES. This is evidenced by the FACT that in criminal trials, in excess of 95% of the cases end with the accused pleading guilty to a plea bargain or in a guilty verdict.

Is THAT justice??

The ONLY way a trial can be fair to the accused would be if the state were required by law to match the prosecution's resources dollar for dollar, hour for hour when providing a "court appointed attorney" for the accused.
The only way this could be done is for the state to hire outside legal cousel for the accused, NOT by appointing an overworked, underpaid "public defender."

You all may say "screw that, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay THAT much for the defense of an accused." That's all well and good until it's YOUR a-- on the line and all that stands between you and 30 years in prison is that same court appointed "defender."

Kapisch??
 
One indicating the police were tunneling under his house and the government was watching him via satellite
Click to expand...

Hey, they're doing that to me too - does that mean a jury wouldn't believe anything I said?

Seriously, you gotta love his response during the press conference immediately after the acquittal:

Journalist: "Who do you honestly think killed your wife?"

Blake: [staring intensely, pausing] "Shut up".

Short and sweet - lol.

Progunner, you speak quite wisely.
 
progunner1957 said:
Prosecutors have unlimited resources, monetary and otherwise to bring to bear against the accused. When the accused can hire $10 million worth of legal defense, the prosecutors cry "foul." Exactly why is it unfair when the playing field is leveled??
Click to expand...
PG-
I've been off hunting for 3 days and this thread has been rattling around in my head. Thanks for setting it straight (for those willing to listen.)

There's so much knee jerk bleating around here every time someone with a few bucks gets off. No one notices that it's those exact same high profile accused persons that the State Coffers open fully to prosecute.

It's a no-limit game and anyone who believes the State didn't spend far more on Blake than on John Q. Unknown Citizen is kidding themselves. Prosecutors achieve (or kill) their dreams of Political Advancement on guys like this....and they spare no expense. Was he guilty?....quite possibly. But according to a Jury of His Peers (much like many of us posting here, only with far better info than we take the time to glean) there was not sufficient evidence.

Seems to me that any Freedom Lover would be celebrating the fact that .gov doesn't always win; not bleating about the fact that it lost a case the Media really wished to follow with images of prison time.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top