3.25.2009

Misdemeanor Crime News

After deliberating all morning, breaking for lunch, and then most of the afternoon, a jury found a lady guilty of DWI today. They even sent a note out shortly before 3:00 that they were deadlocked 4-2. The jury consisted of four middle aged women and two guys in their twenties. I never understand how you can have a doubt all day about someone's guilt, and that doubt not be a reasonable one. Which, by definition, means a vote of not guilty. (Actual Wise County Courthouse pic by the way.)

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

What if I want to exit?

My Other Brother Darryl

Anonymous said...

Barry, guilt becomes less doubtful the more likely I will have to pay extra for babysitting, or I get hungry, or it looks like I am going to miss American Idol.

Geesh, the cops must have had a reason to arrest the jerk, (I mean, I'VE never been arrested) so they must be guilty of something.

Anonymous said...

Was this a case of inadequate description of and/or understanding of reasonable doubt? Was the evidence overwhelming? Or was it as 5:04 says, the jury had other things to attend to. What now happens to this school teacher and her job?

Anonymous said...

sorry if justice takes too much of your precious time Barry, maybe we can ask the SCOTUS to rule on a "Barry Green clause" that would state all juries should decide guilt or innocence in 5-10 minutes or the defendant is free. If the lady school teacher is guilty then she should certainly lose her job.

Anonymous said...

Dont go in there BTW...

Anonymous said...

It was getting close to beer-thirty for the two twenty-somethings.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately, Barry..... most of us out here understand that even though it may be a misdemeanor when she's caught BEFORE she kills someone, that's only by the innocent victim's luck. DWI should be an automatic state jail felony, an automatic license revocation for 5 years and mandatory jail

Anonymous said...

How easy is it to figure out who voted how on THAT jury?

Wonder who got the "honor" of being "jury foreman"..or "jury forewoman".......

After all, that person gets to stand before a HUGE crowd in the courtroom of........

..maybe ten lawyers and five spectators.

Lights, camera, action.

Anonymous said...

Why should a school teacher lose her job when other professions don't.Truck drivers taxi drivers ect. don't unless their insurance cans them.Got a messican buddy that has two so he added another new last name.Same person owns three ,drives one an we don't a real I D card;--ull --it.DAGO

Anonymous said...

7:22, what do you mean school teacher? How do y'all know it was a school teacher?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:22. Truck drivers, commercial pilots, ship captains... all of them will lose their licenses if prosecuted as a result of a DWI.

Anonymous said...

oh noes barry a person got punished for BREAKING THE LAW WHERE IS THE JUSTICE!?!?!?! CALL THE ACLU. F the aclu.

Anonymous said...

Why is this such a problem? Lawyers on both sides present their cases and then after some serious deliberating, they come back with a verdict. A verdict that just so happens to be one that you don't like.

What should we do with folks that are drinking and driving in your opinion? Why don't you post that?

Before you make light of DWI, maybe you should talk to the hundreds of folks whose lives are forever changed by a drunk driver. Try and play your "DWI is not that big a deal" crap with Jackie Murphree's family and see how far you get.

Oh wait, you don't have the nuts to do that. Pretty big hiding behind your blog, but I would bet you don't have to soul to do it to their face. Spineless coward.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't go down in the basement bathroom. You could get the crabs!!

Anonymous said...

6:21, you can keep ratcheting up the penalties for DWI and it won't make much difference on the number of DWIs every year, which constitute the bulk of the caseload in every criminal county court in Texas (and probably in the other states, too).

The legislature has been doing just that since 1982, yet the lawmakers and MADD don't seem to realize that:

(1) most people who are truly guilty of DWI (as opposed to being falsely accused by an overly cautious police officer) think they have to look like Otis Campbell to be guilty (and therefore didn't think they were legally intoxicated when they got behind the wheel); and

2) most people who are truly guilty of DWI had no idea how much it would cost them or affect their ability to get/keep a job.

If you want to stop DWIs, outlaw the manufacture of alcoholic beverages and make the penalties for selling or possessing alcohol beverages steep.

Is the public (or the liquor industry) willing to go that far? Nope.

Anonymous said...

3:41....what world do you live in? Europe has the most stringent policies towards DWI and the problem is much lower. And, as a peace officer, I can assure you that "overly cautious" police officers will err on the side of not drunk because of the hassle to put someone in jail and do the follow-up. Go get a clue....or get some new rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

I would like to be a fly on the wall, when these same commenters are faced with their kids, grandkids, etc. are facing these charges! I'll bet they will not be quite as harsh, huh?

Anonymous said...

I had to drive cuz I was too drunk to walk.

betty boop said...

7:57...seriously? What about the ones that have lost loved ones to these same people? If their loved one was so senselessly killed, do you think that maybe they wouldn't be so quick to defend? I would hat for my children or grandchildren to be arrested for such, but if it were true, accept responsibility and take what the criminal justice system has in store...

Anonymous said...

To sum it up--It was a case that was ably and effectively prosecuted by our newly elected County Attorney, James Stainton. The defendant was well represented by a fine Denton attorney, Rick Hagen. The jury took a long time because they sifted over all the facts during their deliberations (including watching BOTH videos again in their entirety), and they finally came up with their verdict of guilty. No real "issues" here. Wise County can be proud of our new County Attorney, and how well he does in court. James is doing a great job replacing Greg Lowery, who did a great job as County Attorney, and who will no doubt do a great job as District Attorney. No, I am NOT a family member, relative, or employee of James or Greg, either! Just someone who observes both of them at work.

Anonymous said...

Sure you would Betty Boop, sure you would. You would walk their little ass's all the way to the steps of Huntsville, sure you would! Those who live in glass houses.....you know the rest

Anonymous said...

Not my Baby....please Lord, not MY baby. He's not guilty, he's misunderstood, Lord help MY baby...

--Typical Mom of a person who made a huge mistake after being sentenced.

Jarhead said...

Surprisingly, there are no misspellings on the signs.

Anonymous said...

A word for Betty Boop and the blogger at 10:11pm.....the ones on the other side are people too, who have sometimes made a mistake...with tragic consequences, definitely...but remember...it's not for YOU or anyone to judge. My son was convicted of intox manslaugher, and he's still a remarkable and wonderful human being...just one who made a sad mistake. Get a grip...the "victims" aren't the only victims here. Stop being so holier than thou and have a little true compassion. There are ALWAYS two sides.

Anonymous said...

Year in Jail
Confiscate the Car
Suspend license 5 years

That would make people think twice about driving someplace to get drunk in the first place.

If I shoot someone I get charged with murder...if I shoot at someone I get charged with attempted murder....aiming a car down the road drunk isn't unlike shooting at someone. It is willful and can result in death.

No pity.

Anonymous said...

Don't throw out that the drunks are victims too bunch of nonsense. Your son made a choice to drink then get in his car. It's not like he didn't have warnings beforehand that it was wrong and illegal.

You would't be saying there are two sides if your son had been murdered by a gang banger would you? Nope.

Anonymous said...

Officer 6:10, I assume you got your statistics about Europe's superior results with more stringent DWI laws during your one-size-fits-all SFSTs training.

No less than the NHTSA noted in a comprehensive comparison of "European" DWI laws several years back that it is difficult to compare US and European results because of a number of factors, including lower BAC limits in Europe (usually .05); younger drinking ages in Europe but older ages for obtaining driver's licenses; different attitudes about drinking (although an increase in "binge drinking" in Europe appears to be skewing the results); greater use in Europe of public transportation and less reliance on personal vehicles; and the role of the police in DWI investigations (they don't always play the same role that the police do in the US). In other words, you're not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

A quick search of the Internet will reveal support for both positions. For example,a California study in 2003 showed that the number of DWI-related fatalities stayed the same over a six-year period despite an increase in the penalties for such offenses, whereas a report from 1999 indicated that stricter penalties had resulted in a decrease of DWI-related accidents.

It appears that most emergency first-responders and emergency room attendants share your view that tougher penalties would work, but that may be an emotional response from having to view the results of a tragic DWI accident up close.

My modest proposal of outlawing alcohol completely was offered in the ironic spirit of Samuel Johnson, and it's certainly not going to be implemented, although it would work better than the current strategy.

Keep increasing the penalties for DWI (it's no skin off my nose) and see if the percentage of alcohol-related accidents in the US falls below the annual average of 40%; I bet it won't.

Jarhead said...

Whoops. Looks like I didn't look close enough...

DOH!

Anonymous said...

12:52, you have no idea of what you speak. Accidents are just that...accidental. Waaaay different from purposely murdering someone. Additionally, the dd has family too, and YES there are many victims, not just the poor "victim" you so vehemently mourn. Young people make mistakes..I'd like to find someone who didn't on the road to adulthood. If everyone who ever drove after a drink or 2 was caught as my son was, that would amount to the vast majority of the population. You never drank and drove as a kid? If not, you are certainly in the minority or just one of the lucky ones. They're not in the same boat, the kid who made a mistake and the 3-4 time repeat offender. There's a huge differenc whether you think so or not. People like you really make me sick.

Anonymous said...

This is Officer Lon Moore and your ass is grass!

Anonymous said...

People, please recognize the difference between deriving after drinking and driving while legally intoxicated. Many drive after drinking and have no problems. Those who are intoxicated to the extent where their ability to navigate safely need to be cited and convicted. That's quite different from one who's been drinking but is completely capable of navigating his/her vehicle to its destination.

Anonymous said...

to those who are questioning the numbers i will put it to you simply 1 in 5 people will be affected by a drunk driver. 1 in 5 that is a high number if you look at it that means 20 people out of 100 will be affected. i agree with the fact that the other side are people but they made the choice no one put them in thier car and made them drive the defendant should be happy that he has a chance to learn not to drink and drive before he hurt or killed himself or another person. remember friends dont let friends drink and drive.

Anonymous said...

9:39 Assuming your numbers are correct, then 4 out of 5 people (80%) will be affected by NOT drunk drivers. Shouldn't we focus on that 80% "majority?" Sure, drunks should be prosecuted. However, not all who drink are drunk.