Robert Blake found not guilty!

Blake joins O.J. in beating the system, in my opinion.

 

Yes

I agree wholeheartedly. Even though much of the evidence was circumstantial I thought that they would find him guilty.

Now lets see what happens with Jacko. I for some reason, think that he is going to get off although I think that he is guilty too.

At least that dirt bag Scott Peterson is getting what he deserves.

 

Will he be looking for the 'real' killer too?

 

Re: Re: Robert Blake found not guilty!

When he gets the cockatoo out of storage.

 

Re: Yes

Fame and money, neither of which Peterson had. (Peterson gained infamy after the crime--not the same thing.)

 

You may very well be right, but I could never make heads or tails of the trial. While he very well could have done it, I don't think the case was particularly solid. I wondered how this played elsewhere, but here in Central California, it didn't really get that much air time (relative to other trials). Of course, Fresno has its very own morbid trial playing now, the Marcus Wesson trial.

I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Jackson is also found innocent for much the same reason. People can *know* many things about him, but the case is weak (primarily do to the people involved and what they have done in the past with accusations elsewhere).

It's never dull in California.



Tom Nixon

 

OJ's trial was a prosecutorial debacle approaching the level of malpractice; and a judge who embarrassed himself. Given the circus that his trial became, acquittal was the only safe outcome to ensure that a miscarriage of justice did not occur. That said, it probably meant that a killer went free. So be it. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Scott Peterson probably did it, but should not have been convicted, based on the lack of physical evidence. I also think the judge erred -- possibly reversably -- in at least one of the juror dismissals, and in at least two other rulings. And I will go to my grave worrying how pre-trial publicity with a thoroughness and ubiquity never envisioned by our nation's founding fathers poisoned the potential jury pool. As I said on THE FOX NEWS CHANNEL's "Hannity and Colmes," at the time, "I'd rather see Peterson go free than have even one juror enter that courtroom already knowing how he or she was going to vote." I'm virtually certain that at least two jurors did, in fact, do that very thing. I will never be comfortable with the outcome... even though, if he actually did do it (which I figure is more likely than that he didn't), it would be the right outcome, even if wrongly arrived at. I'm also anti-death penalty... so it's no secret how I feel about his sentence.

The prosecution's case in the Blake trial was even weaker than Peterson's. That it was the right verdict, under the circumstances, should not be in dispute. Whether or not he actually did it is not so cut-and-dried. But that's how our system works... and how it should work. Justice was done; and the judge was right to dismiss with prejudice the last charge on which the jury could not agree so that this thing would finally be over. It's not so clear that Blake will prevail in the upcoming civil "wrongful death" trial, however. But since he's now broke, alot of good that'll do the victim's family... other than to further drive the old guy bats and, along the way, emotionally (and possibly financially) bankrupt themselves.

 

Blake being found not guilty, is proof that the justice system works.

 

I think the issue with the Peterson trial was, who else could have done it? All the negative pre-trial publicity certainly didn't help either. Scott Peterson was doomed from the beginning. The public and media ultimately decided his fate.

I agree with you in regards to the harsh sentence he received. I personally think the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst. Because of the lack of physical evidence, I think a life sentence without parole would have been more appropriate. While he probably did do it, I don't think he or anyone else should be put to death based soley on circumstantial evidence.

I don't think the blake case should have even been tried in the first place. It was a waste of tax dollars. The prosecution had a very weak case. They could provide no real evidence showing that blake was the shooter, and their key witnesses had little to no credibility.

I have not heard that he is broke, but either way I seriously doubt that the victim's family will have much chance at winning a civil trial. He has been through enough, I think they should leave the old man be and let him enjoy the little bit of life he has left.

 

Another criminal goes scott-free! - but I digress .......

To our own legal eagles:

Please explain this one to me:

Why is it that there is a constitutional prohibition against a person being tried TWICE for the same crime or charge, and yet, we seem to be having a proliferation of exactly two (or more trials), as is evidenced in the following examples:

- the infamous OJ criminal trial, THEN the civil case (which went against OJ and found him, I think, but I may be wrong, to be "personally but not criminally liable...")

- the infamous Kobe Bryant rape-charge trial, THEN the civil case (which was subsequently settled out-of-court)

- the recent Robert Blake criminal trial AND soon-to-follow civil case.

Now, here comes an exhibition of my possible legal ignorance:

Does the criminal trial PLUS the ensuing civil trial NOT constitute TWO trials, and thus, a violation of the prohibited "you cannot try a person twice for the same crime" axiom or dictum?

I am not saying that the subsequent civil cases were/are wrong and should not have been brought.

In fact, it is my personal opinion that all three persons cited above in my examples were/are guilty. Period. But, hey, I am not an attorney, just a Joe Blow with an opinion, however, misguided and uninformed ....... smile.......

I am beginnning to think, though, that if persons charged with a crime can (and sometimes, should) be tried again under different set of circumstances, then the law or statute or prohibition against trying a person for two or more times need to be removed or abolished.

Ok.

I am now waiting, arms folded and brow furrowed, for the torrent of responses from our legal eagles and member/contributors to tell me how wrong I am in my speculation above - and each said response will be greatly appreciated by me.

Thanks.

 

Re: Re: Robert Blake found not guilty!

I think you're correct here. The evidence was shabby and most circumstantial.

As far as Jackson, I have a sneaky suspicion he will be found guilty.

Even more disturbing is that parent after parent after parent allowed children to be alone with Jackson after all the allegations.

Any 45-year old man who admits on national television he "sleeps" with children has a problem and so do the parents who allow such.

 

And dat's the name of dat tune

 

Re: Re: Re: Robert Blake found not guilty!

I agree - any parent who woud put his or her child in harms way should be prosecuted. I have no doubt Jackson molested this and other boys. However, I think a lot of gold diggers are out there trying to get money as well.

 

Jake

A criminal trial requires that you be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that all 12 jurors have to agree that you are guilty. A civil trial requires only a preponderance of the evidence. This means only 7/12 of the jurors have to buy into your story.

As far as double jeapardy - this only applies to criminal cases. The civil and criminal cases are in fact two separate actions.

As far as Kobe goes - guilty IMHO. His legal defense team was able to skirt the gag order by playing games and naming the victim -- a direct violation of the law. I believe attornies who violate this restriction need to be disbarred - period. They know exactly what they are doing and at least a few need to be made clear examples to other lawyers wanting to commit the same offense.

OJ's case was jury nullification pure and simple. If you want to find a scapegoat, don't blame the LAPD, blame Daryl Gates. He was a terrible Cheif of Police in LA - he fostered an atmosphere of racism and distrust with the community he was supposed to serve.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Robert Blake found not guilty!

I also agree that the parents should be held accountable for allowing something like this to go on. Although I'm not so sure that I believe these allegations.

The alleged victim's credibility seems to be starting to fade. He apparently told a school official that jackson didn't do anything to him. Also he had been giving the teachers at school some problems, and was known as a trouble maker.

 

Differences of opinion

This is a real big can of worms but I for one have no mercy on those that inflict horrible and cruel pain on other human beings. There is simply no excuse.

When I look at my wife and little one year old boy ( or my big strapping 5'11, 210 lb All league lineman son for that matter ) and think of the anguish that Laci and Conner must have felt as he killed them I cannot help but think that he should be put to death.

I also hear Laci's mother's testimony and closing remarks yesterday and my heart breaks. Burying Laci without arms to hold Conner. That is something that she will live with for the rest of her life while Scott is in jail apparently remorseless for what he has done.

Put yourself in her shoes for one unimaginable moment.

Take into account also the fact that at sentencing he actually came in smiling and jovial in the face of Laci's family and you have the portrait of an animal who's life serves absolutely no purpose other than to possibly be kept alive for psycological evaluations in order to find out how his brain works, much like I hear Manson is.

Circumstantial evidence yes. But come one, give me a break.

He buys a boat
Charts currents in the bay
Mixes cement
Has an affair while the search is going on and lies about it
Speaks of his wife in past tense
Changes his appearance
Heads towards Mexico with $10,000 cash
Pliers with ( I think ) Laci's hair on them
And allot more that I know I have forgotten about

Talk about a pre-meditated murder!!!!!

I mean, how much more did we need to merit the penealty for the worst of the worst?

If he had gotten off I think it would have been worse than OJ. At least OJ killed two adults and one wasn't pregnant although he DID kill the mother of his children. In my opinion he should be in San Quentin in the same cell as Scott or better yet, let loose among the population. I hear that child killers and molestors don't last long in prison.

 

Evidence aside, which in both cases was mostly circumstancial, Peterson had two strikes against him going in. Laci was cute, vivacious, and from a solid family. Blake's wife was apparently a not so cute manipulator of men.

I think those factors more than likely played into the jury's decision.

As far as OJ goes, that trial was a complete debacle. OJ's defense team ran rings around the prosecution.

Although I believe that jury could have been shown a video of OJ committing the murders, and still would have aquitted him.

I heard one of the jurors say, after the trial, something along the lines of "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it to me." Well, since the jury was sequestered, if the prosecution didn't prove it, who did?

 

Re: Differences of opinion

Yeah, because murderers and rapists have such high moral standards.

 

Come on, you know what I mean.

I mean that even murderers and rapists have animals that are lower in the food chain than they are. Those being child molesters and killers.

There is some sort of strange (or maybe not so strange) prison code that sets these people apart in the minds of other prisoners.

I would guess it has to do with children being defenseless and helpless against adults and are mostly unable to fight back while adults can fend for themselves.

I agree with the murderers and rapists in that regard but not by much.

 

Oh, I know what you mean. I wasn't challenging your post.

I've heard the same thing about the "code" in prisons. I've always thought it was amusing that killers supposedly have a code of conduct or certain ethical standards that they impose on others.

That's riduculous...a cold blooded killer is a cold blooded killer.