Nappy-Headed Hoax

[Amianthus]

The judge couldn't find one single reasonable doubt on the subject.   And the prick never appealed, either, which means the case wasn't even close.

You might have a point if the facts were different.

The fact is, he pled guilty in exchange for community service and probation. After he pled guilty, the judge accepted the plea deal, and the community service had already been served, the judge heard about the indictment for the rape case (which never happened) and the judge revoked the deal.

How do you appeal a guilty plea? Especially a plea that was predicated on a deal the judge initially accepted and only revoked based on a lie?

[sirs]

Ouch.....there's that nasty timeline thing again         

[Michael Tee]

<<The fact is, he pled guilty in exchange for community service and probation.>>

OK.  So he himself ADMITTED that he did it, in the first instance.

<<After he pled guilty, the judge accepted the plea deal>>

Uhm, aren't you leaving something out?  Before the judge can accept the plea deal, he has to accept the plea of guilty.  Has to satisfy himself that it's not coerced.  Hears all the facts of the case read into the record by the prosecutor.  Asks the accused if the facts as read are substantially true.  Hears the accused admit the facts read by the prosecutor are true.  THEN, he accepts the plea.  And after that, THEN he approved the plea bargain.

So at that point we know with 100% certainty that this piece of shit viciously assaulted a gay man in a bar with no provocation and terrorized, threatened and humiliated him for about half an hour without letup.  Nice.

But that was not the end of the story.  The little shit had apparently snuck the plea deal past the court by pretending that he was never in any other trouble with the law, when in fact he was under indictment in the rape case.  Why should the judge let the plea bargain stand when it was obtained by deceit and deception?  If he let this one stand, other accused would be encouraged to lie to the court about the extent of their involvement in the criminal justice system in order to secure a more favourable plea bargain.

 So what happened next?  As you yourself admit:  <<. . .  the judge heard about the indictment for the rape case (which never happened) and the judge revoked the deal.>>

Naturally, not knowing at the time what the outcome of the rape charges would be, the judge was probably outraged by the deception that had been practiced upon him and revoked the plea bargain, putting the punk on trial on the assault charge.  And guess what?  After a full and fair trial, [in the course of which his star defence witness lied his ass off], after a full defence, and after being given every reasonable benefit of doubt, HE WAS DULY AND PROPERLY CONVICTED OF THE OFFENCE.  What a surprise.

<<How do you appeal a guilty plea? Especially a plea that was predicated on a deal the judge initially accepted and only revoked based on a lie?>>

You just answered your own question.  When the guilty plea was revoked by the judge, there was no plea to appeal.  A trial and conviction followed.  You SHOULD have asked, how do you appeal a conviction?  It's easy:  you have to start with valid grounds for an appeal.  Of which, apparently, there were none.

[Amianthus]

So at that point we know with 100% certainty that this piece of shit viciously assaulted a gay man in a bar with no provocation and terrorized, threatened and humiliated him for about half an hour without letup.  Nice.

Actually, no. Accepting guilt and being guilty are not the same thing.

Besides, the guy wasn't gay. His girlfriend and his attorney both made that clear.

[Amianthus]

But that was not the end of the story.  The little shit had apparently snuck the plea deal past the court by pretending that he was never in any other trouble with the law, when in fact he was under indictment in the rape case.  Why should the judge let the plea bargain stand when it was obtained by deceit and deception?  If he let this one stand, other accused would be encouraged to lie to the court about the extent of their involvement in the criminal justice system in order to secure a more favourable plea bargain.

He was not indicted until after he accepted the plea deal and performed the required community service.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, no. Accepting guilt and being guilty are not the same thing.>>

Ridiculous.  Fortunately the judges of your country and mine don't need to play these little semantic games.  They only need to satisfy themselves that the guy who pleads guilty committed the acts the prosecutor says he committed, and that those acts fall within the definition of some kind of crime.  This guy by his own words and actions satisfied the judge that he had in fact viciously assaulted the victim, terrorized and humiliated him for about thirty minutes in front of others.  To put it as plainly as I can:  he was clearly  guilty of the crime as charged and he admitted it. 

<<Besides, the guy wasn't gay. His girlfriend and his attorney both made that clear.>>

Oh, that makes it all OK then.  If a Nazi stormtrooper mistakes some poor bugger for a Jew and beats him to a pulp, I guess if the guy wasn't a Jew after all, that makes everything OK too. 

Incredible.

[Amianthus]

Ridiculous.  Fortunately the judges of your country and mine don't need to play these little semantic games.

Hey, I've pled guilty to a traffic offense that I didn't do for a reduced penalty. Judge didn't even talk to me, my lawyer "stipulated" and the deal was done.

How much time have you spent in a US courtroom?

[Amianthus]

They only need to satisfy themselves that the guy who pleads guilty committed the acts the prosecutor says he committed, and that those acts fall within the definition of some kind of crime.  This guy by his own words and actions satisfied the judge that he had in fact viciously assaulted the victim, terrorized and humiliated him for about thirty minutes in front of others.  To put it as plainly as I can:  he was clearly  guilty of the crime as charged and he admitted it. 

I guess not so much.

After all, Judge Bayly set aside the conviction in DC after the charges in NC were dropped.

Guess if the judge were so convinced, he wouldn't have done so?

Oh, that makes it all OK then.  If a Nazi stormtrooper mistakes some poor bugger for a Jew and beats him to a pulp, I guess if the guy wasn't a Jew after all, that makes everything OK too. 

Incredible.

What I find incredible is that you see no difference between beating someone to a pulp and yelling slurs at them.

[gipper]

I would downplay the seriousness of the acts this young man pled guilty to. The noncustodial sentence of a short-term probation coupled with the initial hesitancy bordering on reluctance to charge him at all indicates that fact quite clearly. It was not as Michael recklessly claims a "vicious assault. As for guilt (that is, whether he actually did it), the court is required to take an allocution, or factual basis, from the defendant himself, which must satisfy the court that the events occurred as charged, the defendant committed the acts alleged, and that those acts constitute the crime to which he is pleading. Much of the time this can be taken at face value. Often enough, however, to eliminate the risk of conviction for a more serious crime and/or imposition of a heavier, a defendant will plead guilty when he didn't actually commit the crime or else has a colorable defense which he cedes with his plea.

[Michael Tee]

<<It was not as Michael recklessly claims a "vicious assault. >>

It was vicious because he terrorized, threatened and humiliated his victim for half an hour.  That's plenty vicious.  It's not a passing insult yelled from the window of a speeding car.  If it happened to you, or to someone you loved, it would be vicious.

[Richpo64]

For half an hour?

Didn't the guy have the sense to walk away?

Something smells fishy.

[Amianthus]

For half an hour?

Didn't the guy have the sense to walk away?

Something smells fishy.

Mikey likes to leave out the fact that the other guy was yelling insults right back at him. The same type of insults.

[sirs]

For half an hour?  Didn't the guy have the sense to walk away?  Something smells fishy.

Mikey likes to leave out the fact that the other guy was yelling insults right back at him. The same type of insults.

Must fit template.....must fit template.  Can't be having facts keep getting in the way of one's predisposed mindset is, in this case how racist and evil the white Duke players really are.  They were just lucky, as "the system" helped get them off the rape charge