Archive for August 2, 2007

A plea of not guilty is NOT evading responsibility

aflac_1.jpg

 (click on image for full size)

It should be painfully obvious to most of us (even non criminal lawyers), but apparently not to the good folks at Good Morning America. Today’s show featured a segment with Nicole Richie, who is off to (or perhaps already in?) jail for a DUI conviction.

She was interviewed this morning by the venerable Diane Sawyer [click here for the story and the video on the right] who repeatedly insinuated that Richie’s plea of not guilty was connected with her lack of desire to take responsibility for her drunk driving.

As the story went, one day Richie and her baby-daddy were watching TV when, on the TV, started flashing pictures of kids who died in accidents caused by drunk drivers. This led to an epiphany on Richie’s part and now she’s going to court to “take responsibility” and plead guilty.

Stop perpetuating this nonsense, GMA. A plea of not guilty does not equate to evading responsibility. An accused has an absolute right to persist in a plea of not guilty. It simply means you are leaving the state to their burden of proof.

I can’t believe I’m posting about Nicole Richie.

Cheshire killings and parole fallout recap

A lot has happened in the last few days, so after one more new item, here’s a recap of all my posts on this topic.

According to this story in today’s Courant, the younger of the accused, Komisarjevsky was under GPS monitoring for 120 days after his release. The monitoring condition expired 4 days before the incident in Cheshire.

“It is not unusual for people who are leaving prison and are on parole to be monitored for a period of time,” [State Rep.] Lawlor said. “The normal period is 90 days. The officer has the option to shorten it or lengthen it. They opted in this case to lengthen it to 120 days.”

Komisarjevsky kept his curfews and met other conditions of parole, so the bracelet was removed July 19. Lawlor said he believes that Komisarjevsky either would not have been paroled or would have been subject to longer monitoring had parole officials known of his propensity for burglarizing occupied homes at night.

Oh, one more thing: His “prior record” didn’t exist. His sentencing in 2002 was his first brush with the system. His “history of home invasions” was limited to the 12 burglaries that led to his conviction in 2002. Nothing prior to that. So it is a bit misleading to say that parole didn’t have his record. They did. It comprised the offenses for which he was serving a sentence.

I will continue to disagree with the Representative in his assessment there, but this is another indication that parole was doing all it could.

Here is all my coverage on this:

Related Posts with Thumbnails