Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The only slur in this thread might be when you called the Lawyer a "tard"Indeed. Who claimed otherwise other than by inference? There is an inference here that is glaring. I laid it out very plainly. The reasons the lawyer wants a different venue is racial, religious, and inferred bigotry. To argue otherwise is to plug your ears and close your eyes. Link to comment
LeSellers Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The lawyer who contends (or at least implies) that Saints on the jury would have been more lenient if the condemned had been LDS is a fool. I believe that, since we hold ourselves to a somewhat higher standard, that they would have been harsher on him had he been a member of the Church and done what he was convicted of doing. (The heiniousity of his crime goes well beyond any bounds I can imagine.)Lehi Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Wait... What?You know, gilt by association. Some members were racist so all members are racist. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Seems like a silly fight to defend--the lawyer who wishes a change of venue due to the factors he mentions.I don't see any reasonable purpose to even fighting this. What does race have to do with it? Does everything have to be about race? The kid murdered a lady. Race is no factor at all. Religion either. Those are just cheap tricks if you ask me.I agree. You are 100% correct. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Indeed. Who claimed otherwise other than by inference? There is an inference here that is glaring. I laid it out very plainly. The reasons the lawyer wants a different venue is racial, religious, and inferred bigotry. To argue otherwise is to plug your ears and close your eyes.The lawyer inferred nothing. He stated only facts. 1. The previous lawyer did not push for a change of venue.2. His Client is Black.3. His client is not LDS.He did not allege or infer any impropriety with the jury. He did not accuse Mormons in general or any juror specifically of racism or bigotry. He did not demand a new jury with no LDS members or no white people. He isn't even arguing to overturn the conviction. His goal at the end of the day is to get his client a lighter sentance. That's it. That is the extent of this grand conspirancy you see. Sentances are appealed all of time for countless reasons. There are enough people out there actually "slurring" peoples religions. We don't need to start imagining them. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The lawyer who contends (or at least implies) that Saints on the jury would have been more lenient if the condemned had been LDS is a fool. I believe that, sionce we hold ourselves to a somewhat higher standard, that they would have been harsher on him had he been a member of the Church and done what he was convicted of doing. (The heiniousity of his crime goes well beyond any bounds I can imagine.)LehiDoes anyone know the typical sentance for a teenager convicted of Capital Murder? That will be what ultimately decides this appeal. If I recall correctly the article said this is the first teenager in Utah to ever receive a life sentance. Have other Utah teenagers been convicted of Capital Murder? Link to comment
LeSellers Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Does anyone know the typical sentance for a teenager convicted of Capital Murder? That will be what ultimately decides this appeal. If I recall correctly the article said this is the first teenager in Utah to ever receive a life sentance. Have other Utah teenagers been convicted of Capital Murder?The crime was more than mere capital murder. It was incident to, first, a rape and then to mutilation, and I don't know what else. If there had been a simliar crime, and the condemned received a lighter sentence, there might be an argument to be made. But "simple" murder is not what he was convicted of. Lehi Link to comment
sjdawg Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The crime was more than mere capital murder. It was incident to, first, a rape and then to mutilation, and I don't know what else. If there had been a simliar crime, and the condemned received a lighter sentence, there might be an arugment to be made. But "simple" murder is not what he was convicted of. LehiFair enough. That is what will determine the appeal. If they can find some comparable cases with lighter sentancing then they may have some success. Life in prison is a long sentance for a youth, but it sounds like a pretty gruesome crime. Link to comment
Mars Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Does anyone know the typical sentance for a teenager convicted of Capital Murder? That will be what ultimately decides this appeal. If I recall correctly the article said this is the first teenager in Utah to ever receive a life sentance. Have other Utah teenagers been convicted of Capital Murder?Actually a very good point.I'm curious why the lawyer didn't go and seek out the precedent, and then use it to bolster his claim... Link to comment
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Do lawyers attempt to set precedents by such actions as described in this case? I mean by claiming a change of venue is of necessity is the lawyer attempting to suggest that a fairer trial could be had elsewhere thus, influencing any future jury to have certain sympathies? Racism is a terrible thing, but its used and exploited now as much, if not more, then it actually occurs it seems. Cheap trick. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Actually a very good point.I'm curious why the lawyer didn't go and seek out the precedent, and then use it to bolster his claim...If I was a betting man I would put my money on the Utah Supreme Court removing the "without parole" stipulation from the sentance and giving the kid a chance at getting out in 25 years. I'm not sure if I agree with that (mixed feelings) but that is my prediction. Link to comment
Walden Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Wait... What?Are you serious? Have you never been exposed to what many outside the LDS church consider to be "racist" views held by the church? I am not arguing that the LDS church is racist, I am just reiterating that there is a very real perception out there that the LDS church has a racist history. Again, the goal of the defense attorney is to poke holes in the prosecutions case. That is what they are paid to do. If this defense attorney can use a "change of venue" argument to contend that his client did not get a fair trial, then why wouldn't he? Especially when one considers the demographics of the jury pool.The apologists here tend to blast the defense attorney, but if they themselves were faced with a similar dilemma, I am sure that they would want their defense attorney to do everything in their power to free them or at least get their sentence reduced....that is what defense attorneys are paid to do. Link to comment
Mars Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Is that what you meant, then, that the perception against Mormons is working against the jury and the sentence? It felt like you were heaping on the criticism that the Church is racist, holds racist views, formerly held racist views, or some combination of the three.Did I misunderstand you? Link to comment
MorningStar Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Davis County is home to Lagoon amusement park, and Hill AFB. I don't see it a particularly a Mormon or non Mormon community. There MAY be a problem with getting a jury of his peers, being one of a minority Blacks living in Utah. There are plenty of examples of an all White jury convicting a Black person, particularly in the South. I don't know about Utah's conviction rate for Black defendants as opposed to White ones. It is probably an uphill battle for any lawyer successfully appeal such verdicts in Utah.IMNTBHO LWOP for any Minor should come under Cruel and Unusual protections of the Constitution.It's cruel and unusual punishment to allow him to go free and kill another innocent woman. Link to comment
katherine the great Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It sounds to me like this is a defense attorney trying to get the most "fair" (or advantageous) trial he can for his client. I think many lawyers would probably use the same strategy. I served my mission in Korea. I love the Korean people, their culture, their food, etc. But, if I had been accused of murdering a Korean person there, and I had my druthers, I'd like to have an American or two on my jury. This isn't because I think Koreans are "bigots." I would never think or imply such a thing. I would just like to be judged by someone who I feel (right or wrong) shares my culture and can relate to me. Obviously this is not an exact comparison because an American can't sit on a Korean jury(in fact I'm not even sure if they have juries), but I couldn't help but try to put myself in that situation. Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Hey, I'm one of the most conservative lawyers out there. But I'd pull those cards out of my hand and use them. Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Are you serious? Have you never been exposed to what many outside the LDS church consider to be "racist" views held by the church? I am not arguing that the LDS church is racist, I am just reiterating that there is a very real perception out there that the LDS church has a racist history. Again, the goal of the defense attorney is to poke holes in the prosecutions case. Um, no. Not in this case. Note that Mr. Pace was not addressing "the prosecutions case," but the efficacy of the defendant's prior defense counsel.That is what they are paid to do. If this defense attorney can use a "change of venue" argument to contend that his client did not get a fair trial, then why wouldn't he? Especially when one considers the demographics of the jury pool.So you agree with the defense attorney's implication that Mormons are bigoted against blacks and non-Latter-day Saints?-Smac Link to comment
katherine the great Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 By far the most disturbing thing about this story is the nature of the young man's crimes. Any implied or imagined slur in the attorney's appeal becomes a non issue compared to the heinous nature of the crime and the horror it caused the young woman and her family. I can't even imagine. I think the attorney can say whatever he wants (no matter how offensive to whomever), and it won't change the boy's sentence. Link to comment
frankenstein Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So you agree with the defense attorney's implication that Mormons are bigoted against blacks and non-Latter-day Saints?-Smacor could it be that in the attorneys experience LDS heavy juries are "kinder" to LDS defendants. Link to comment
bluebell Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 or could it be that in the attorneys experience LDS heavy juries are "kinder" to LDS defendants.So, you believe if the young man had been LDS, that alone would have caused the sentence to be kinder? Link to comment
frankenstein Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So, you believe if the young man had been LDS, that alone would have caused the sentence to be kinder?i believe that perhaps there is another explanation for the attorneys comment other than the one offered by smac. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So you agree with the defense attorney's implication that Mormons are bigoted against blacks and non-Latter-day Saints?-SmacI love your imaginary slurs against mormons. It must be tough living in such a cruel world. Link to comment
bluebell Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 i believe that perhaps there is another explanation for the attorneys comment other than the one offered by smac.So the one you're offering up is that maybe LDS juries really ARE nicer to murders if they are LDS? Link to comment
Walden Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Um, no. Not in this case. Note that Mr. Pace was not addressing "the prosecutions case," but the efficacy of the defendant's prior defense counsel.So you agree with the defense attorney's implication that Mormons are bigoted against blacks and non-Latter-day Saints?-SmacI only agree that there is a perception out there that the LDS church has a racist history and that LDS folks in Utah look down on those who are not LDS.I do not posit that this is either true or untrue, only that it is the perception of outsiders.A good defense attorney will use this "perception" to his advantage; that's what he is paid to do. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So the one you're offering up is that maybe LDS juries really ARE nicer to murders if they are LDS?Yeah, that makes sense. Lol. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.