.jpg)
From an unnamed cell phone email: "Sweet ride. In the parking lot of the old hospital [in Decatur] . . . parked sideways so no one door dings it!"
And, although not a pic, emailer Danielle sends along this headline which she knew would get my attention:
Oh, my.
Edit: I think Yahoo's chart was screwed up. Looking back at what happened, it looks like the initial drop was around 600 points. The last close was 8,579.19 and the lowest it got this morning was 7882.51. They might want to fix that --- seeing a 1,000 point drop is quite the shocker (although a 600 drop isn't a reason to celebrate.)
. . . just received four life sentences. Stacked. That makes him eligible for parole in 120 years.
(I'll update later.)
Edit:
I've been doing this a long time, and I can't recall anyone who got hammered as badly as this guy. Not that he didn't deserve it, it's just an observation.
I watched most of the trial but, admittedly, not all of it. The basics facts aren't (sadly) all that shocking in Wise County: The defendant was accused of molesting a family member in a poor section of Newark. Yeah, I've seen a life sentence for that before, but typically you'll see something in 30 to 60 year range.
But what made this case different was the child porn. Yesterday was a bizarre day in the 271st Judicial District Courtroom. About mid-morning, I saw the ladies in the DA's office blocking off the windows which allows the public to peer into the courtroom. By looking at the big screen set up in the courtroom, it didn't take me long to figure out what was going on: Something bad was about to be shown. (The doors remained open for anyone who wanted to walk in, so it remained a "public trial.")
The images were soon shown and (although I don't agree with showing them on a huge screen instead of a more reserved method) they were, and I'm being kind here, shocking. All seven of them. Being a prosecutor and a defense lawyer over the last 20 years has allowed me to see a lot of things that most people never will. but this stuff was bad. I can only imagine what the very conservative looking Wise County jury was thinking -- especially since most of those ladies seemed like the type to have never even seen legal, adult porn much less the shocking illegal stuff.
(Sidenote: I'm 99% sure that this is the first child porn case to have ever been tried in Wise County. And how odd it was. I couldn't help but think about the fact that this guy was charged with possessing images that the public finds so shocking that we have agreed to make it illegal. Yet there were those images being broadcast on the big screen for any member of the public to come in and watch.)
But back to the trial. The jury found the guy guilty of possession seven images of child porn (that's seven different convictions) as well as four counts of aggravated sexual assault (same victim being assaulted four different ways giving rise to four additional convictions.) The guilty verdict really wasn't surprising, but then it was time for the punishment phase.
During that phase, another relative testified that she, too, had been molested by the Defendant. There was other evidence introduced that he had pornographic tapes in his room as well as some magazines that had some bizarre incestuous titles. (Giving more credence to my oft spoken saying of "People are crazy.")
Then it was time to deliberate on punishment. It didn't take long, and that was true even though the deliberations were interrupted when they sent out a note - a note that is the equivalent of a knife in the heart to any defense lawyer: "What is the difference between 'life' and '99 years'." Not a good sign for the defendant.
Because of the 11 convictions, the jury had to assess punishment for each conviction. The child porn, despite all the hoopla, is only a third degree felony with a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The jury gave him the maximum on every single count.
As for the charges of Aggravated Sexual Assault, the maximum is up to life in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. Once again, because of the four convictions, punishment had to be assessed on each one. Once again, he got the maximum of Life in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Based upon the parole laws, a person sentenced to life in prison for that type of offense must serve at least 30 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole.
Now here's a quirk in the law: Normally, multiple sentences assessed in the same trial must run concurrently (at the same time.) However, the law, being no friend of sex offenders, provides an exception for multiple sentences for crimes like Aggravated Sexual Assault. But it's not the jury that makes the decision - it's the judge. (Quite frankly, the jury is placed in the very awkward position of handing down multiple sentences without knowing whether the those sentences will run concurrently or consecutively.) But "consecutively" is what the ruling was in this case as Judge Fostel ordered the four Life sentences to be stacked on top of one another.
I'm not sure why Judge Fostel made that decision, but you'd be hard pressed to find any impartial observer who disagreed with him. From the verdict, it was clear that the jury wanted to assess more than what they were confined to. Perhaps he was following their implicit wishes.
But, in the end, I think it was the child porn that put a flame under the jury. It was, in a way, a perfect criminal justice storm.
***************
The picture, above, was taken as almost an afterthought. Truly, the sentences had been handed down less than 15 minutes before it was taken. He is simply walking out of the basement of the courthouse to a deputy's car. It's ironic that he is walking into sunlight.
Edit:
They are $12 reading glasses that I picked up at Walmart because I can't read squat anymore without them. For about a year, I've kept them in the office and didn't break them out up at the courthouse. That is, until about two weeks ago. Man, everyone loves them. I had no idea. I may do away with my contacts and get some prescription glasses that look like them.
It's kind of a James Spader look from 2 Days In The Valley.
During a break of the seedy criminal trial I was watching in the courthouse, I heard some commotion outside. Looking out the window, I saw a ton of kids walking around the square. It was either a "Wise County Kids For Obama" rally or they were protesting the recent federal bailout. I'm not sure.
Anyway, quite a few waved at me.
It was quite the contrast. Innocence outside. The trial inside.
A faithful reader sends in this pic of one of those little cars we've been seeing around town. Honestly, I've either seen one of them twice or two of them once.
And I don't even know what they are called. But they are closer to a glorified golf cart than an SUV.
Ok, this isn't exactly Wise County related but a faithful lawyer/blog reader sent me this pic that he took today from a "north Texas courtroom that will remain nameless."
The guy in the picture is representing himself in connection with some motion before a judge. But here's the good part: He brought along his cat (who isn't a party to the litigation, I might add.) The unnamed judge was apparently in a good mood and decide to roll with it.
This little "feel good" story was buried on page 7B of the Dallas Morning News.
Little Elm cops "will look for drivers abiding often-overlooked laws such as stopping completely at a stop sign and using a turn signal to change lanes" and will reward those driver's with gift cards donated from local merchants.
Am I the only one that is cocking an eyebrow at this? Cops think it is OK to stop someone for no reason other than to do a good deed? And we all think this is acceptable?
If the headline read: "Little Elm Police Adopt Policy To Stop Law Abiding Drivers" would someone care then?
Have I ever used so many question marks in one post??????
The only good news is that any evidence discovered from the stop can't be used against the driver so long as the Exclusionary Rule still exists. (Which the Supreme Court is slowly eroding, by the way.)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain is proposing a $300 billion program for the federal government to buy up bad home mortgages and allow homeowners to keep their houses.
McCain said: "Until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy and we've got to get some trust and confidence back to America."
In an unusual step, McCain announced the plan during Tuesday's debate. He said that as president he would direct the federal government to purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage providers. The loans would be replaced with fixed-rate mortgages, ostensibly at a loss to the government.
"Is it expensive? Yes," McCain said.
Thoughts:
(1) Isn't this exactly what the government just did with the almost $1 billion billion bailout? That is, buying bad mortgages and trying to work them out?
(2) We need $300 billion more in welfare?
(3) Since when is it the government's job to "stabilize home prices"?
(4) This guy is a Republican? If Obama wins, part of the reason has to be that conservatives aren't remotely energized by McCain who sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican.
I could strangle both of them. Neither can answer a question.
Case in point, McCain's answer (and I'm not picking on him, Obama is just as bad.)
Brokaw: There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across the country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies. Energy policies. And entitlement reforms. . . . Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence.
McCain: [After asking for the three to be repeated and Brokaw specifically telling him to put them in order]: I think you can work on all three at once, Tom.
And everyone tells me it's a picture of Britney from the filming of her new video which, oddly, will debut on 20/20 this Friday.
But I've pretty much downloaded every picture of Brit since she went crazy a couple of years ago. She's on my desktop wallpaper, the cover pic on my iPhone, and on my Christmas cards. I even hold up the picture of her shaving her head during my DWI closing arguments to try deflect criticism away from my innocent client and to cause a question mark to form over the prosecutor's head.
But, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "I know Britney. Britney was a friend of mine. You, girl in the picture, do not look like Britney."
Link
The confusing part is that some of the student body objected but the principal defended it. Those wacky Texans.
But those Decatur cheerleaders might want to reconsider the live sacrifice of a bull which they have planned. (Joking, of course. Unless it is planned. Then I'm all for it in the name of controversy.)
