Category Archives: Law

Posted on by

The Justice Department said that pardons do not mean innocence . . . when it comes to the J6 defendants. The same must hold true for those pardoned by Joe Biden

After Donald Trump won the 2024 election, with an open promise to pardon the Capitol kerfufflers, the Department of Justice, under President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, a man who hates Republicans for denying him a seat on the Supreme Court, wanted to let the January 6 political prisoners that the acceptance of a pardon on their part was an admission of guilt.

Justice Department: Jan. 6 defendants who accept pardons will make ‘a confession of guilt’

Some defendants claim that Trump can issue “pardons of innocence,” but federal prosecutors told a judge that pardons would not wipe away their guilt.

by Kyle Cheney | December 11, 2024 | 3:57 PM EST

The Justice Department sent a message Wednesday to Jan. 6 defendants: Accepting a pardon from Donald Trump is “a confession of guilt” for your crimes.

“[A] pardon at some unspecified date in the future … would not unring the bell of conviction,” federal prosecutors argued in a Jan. 6 case before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. “In fact, quite the opposite. The defendant would first have to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt.”

The pronouncement is the latest attempt by the Justice Department to salvage the legacy of its Jan. 6 investigation, which leaders say is the most sweeping criminal probe in American history. Trump has pledged to unravel that probe with the stroke of his pen by granting clemency to many of the nearly 1,600 people who have been charged for their roles in the attack on the Capitol four years ago.

The legal significance of presidential pardons, and whether they imply guilt, has been debated in courts for decades. The Supreme Court has opined that pardons often carry an “imputation of guilt” even if the consequences for that guilt are erased. And the Justice Department has previously concluded that even if pardons eliminate criminal consequences, those convicted of crimes can still face punishment in other forums, like professional ethics boards.

“A pardon … does not erase the conviction as a historical fact or justify the fiction that the pardoned individual did not engage in criminal conduct,” the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote in a 2006 opinion.

It’s more than just the Department of Justice. In Burdick v United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), the Supreme Court stated:

A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.

A presidential pardon is, the court held, the property of the person to whom it was delivered, and the recipient had the sole discretion as to whether to accept or reject it.

Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. “It may be supposed,” the Court said in United States v. Wilson, “that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment.”

As it happens, two of the condemned prisoners whose sentences President Biden commuted from death to life in prison without the possibility of parole, Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis, rejected the commutations on the basis that they were appealing their convictions on the basis of innocence, and that to accept the commutations would jeopardize their appeals.

It is true we have said (Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 601, 161 U. S. 605) that the law regards only mere penal consequences, and not “the personal disgrace or opprobrium attaching to the exposure” of crime, but certainly such consequence may influence the assertion or relinquishment of a right. . . . .

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

The Supreme Court stated that yes, the acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt.

The Department of Justice was acting against the potential pardons of the kerfufflers:

have increasingly been seeking “pardons of innocence,” claiming Trump has the authority to grant them clemency without forcing an admission of guilt. Those who haven’t been convicted are hoping Trump’s Justice Department simply drops their charges, obviating the need for a pardon altogether.

The Justice Department’s comments on the effect of Jan. 6 pardons came in a court filing in the case of Dova Winegeart, who is seeking to delay her imminent jail term in anticipation of a possible pardon from Trump. Nichols, a Trump appointee, convicted Winegeart for damaging government property after a brief bench trial in October and acquitted her of several misdemeanor counts. On Monday, he sentenced her to four months in prison but agreed to hear arguments on whether the sentence should be delayed to await a potential pardon.

Winegeart is one of many Jan. 6 defendants who have been seeking to delay their sentences or pause their cases in light of Trump’s electoral victory and the potential for him to issue mass pardons when he returns to office.

Prosecutors sharply opposed Winegeart’s request and warned of far-reaching consequences to criminal justice if she is granted a delay based on speculation about a future pardon.

Naturally, the Department of Injustice wanted Miss Winegeart to go straight to jail, to have to serve out at least part of her four month sentence before President Trump took office and could pardon her. And the Attorney General and his minions want to have the record state that if the Capitol kerfufflers are pardoned, while their convictions would be legally wiped away and any punishments not already served wiped away, they would still be guilty, guilty, guilty.

President Biden tried to wipe that away for the individuals he pardoned:

“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing,” Biden wrote each announcement, “nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

Nope, sorry, wrong answer. Both the Supreme Court, whose rulings he cannot change, and his own Justice Department, have claimed that acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt. If any of the kerfufflers who accept the pardons are confessing their guilt, then so are those Mr Biden pardoned; he doesn’t get to have it both ways.

Personally, I’m glad Mr Biden pardoned so many people. They are now guilty under the eyes of the law, and the left can’t say anything about the kerfufflers being pardoned. Many, of course, have already served their sentences and paid fines — fines which should now be returned — but some are still in jail, and we will be as happy to see them released as the Israelis were when the hostages held by Hamas started coming home. Sadly, we can’t give them back their time.

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to be an [insert slang term for the rectum here] to do things right

It was seven months ago that we noted The Free Press’ Olivia Reingold‘s article on how oh-so-well-intended “harm reduction” measures were actually hurting the Kensington neighborhood in Philadelphia.

(Sonja Bingham’s, a 55-year-old mother of three, and local Kensington activist) problem is not just with the hundreds of drug users camped out in Kensington—her neighborhood in northeast Philly that’s been dubbed ground zero for the city’s opioid crisis. It’s with an ecosystem of activists that call themselves “harm reductionists.”

Those who advocate for harm reduction — a Biden-endorsed policy that prioritizes users’ safety over their sobriety or abstinence — say they’re helping fix the problem. But when I visited Kensington last month, Bingham and almost a dozen other residents told me that the activists are actually the ones causing it.

Even The Wall Street Journal noted what a disaster Kensington has been, and how the city’s George Soros-sponsored, police-hating and criminal-loving District Attorney, Larry Krasner, has tried to stymie Mayor Cherelle Parker Mullins’ plans to clean up the blighted area, and now we have a new complaint, this time in The Philadelphia Inquirer: Continue reading →

Posted on by

No matter how much you hate the credentialed media, you do not hate them enough!

Upon seeing this tweet from Eyal Yakoby, I had to check the article to see if it was as bad as I suspected. In some ways, it really wasn’t, because most of it was based on the legal problems for José Ibarra’s defense, and the decision to seek a bench trial, a trial by a judge rather than a jury.

Laken Riley’s killer never stood a chance

For all the political controversy surrounding Jose Ibarra, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt.

By Danny Cevallos, MSNBC legal analyst | Thursday, November 21, 2024 | 7:07 PM EST

Jose Antonio Ibarra was convicted on multiple counts of murder Wednesday in the February killing of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. Ibarra was immediately sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with other consecutive sentences for lesser crimes, including aggravated assault with intent to rape and “peeping Tom.”

Riley’s murder became a political rallying cry at this summer’s Republican National Convention because Ibarra entered the country illegally in 2022. But for all the political controversy, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt.

Continue reading →

Posted on by

He will do it again

Tyler Boyle under arrest, via WPVI-TV.

What sentence did he face originally?

It is always a good thing to see child molesters sentenced to jail, but it’s not a good thing, not a good thing at all, to see them sentenced to far to little time in prison.

An Aldan man was sentenced to county jail for trying to lure underage girls into his car, possessing child porn

Tyler Boyle approached underage girls on two separate occasions as they were walking home from school. After his arrest, police found a hidden cache of child porn on his cell phone.

by Vinny Vella | Hallowe’en, October 31, 2024 | 2:29 PM EDT

An Aldan man who twice tried to lure underage girls walking near their schools to get into his car and asked one to perform a sex act was sentenced Thursday to 11½ to 23 months in county jail.

Tyler Boyle, 21, pleaded guilty in July to luring a child into a motor vehicle, corruption of minors, and related crimes for approaching the girls, as well as possessing child pornography for a hidden cache of images investigators discovered on his cell phone after his arrest.

As a result of the sentence handed down by Delaware County Court Judge Mary Alice Brennan, Boyle must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Assistant District Attorney Bryan Barth said that while it was fortunate none of the victims was physically harmed, Boyle’s behavior warranted incarceration.

So, a guilty plea. His sentence? 11½ to 23 months in the Delaware County jail. Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Vinny Vella continued to tell us that Mr Boyle apologized for his actions and regretted the impact hey had on the victims and their families.

“I’m doing all I can do to change my destructive behavior,” Boyle said. “I vow to get all the help I need, go back to school to finish my degree, and become a productive member of society.”

Tyler Boyle receiving his award for becoming an Eagle Scout, via Pennsylvania’s 163rd Legislative District in Delaware County

Translation: his lawyer told him to express contrition. WPVI-TV identified him as a former Eagle Scout.

Well, perhaps he really is contrite, perhaps he really is sorry for what he did, as well as for having gotten caught. But this wasn’t his first offense.

When he was arrested for this offense, he was already out on bail for exposing himself to a kindergarten aged girl. The girls in the current case were 11-years-old at the time. He still faces the charges for the 2022 arrest.

What, I have to ask, are the odds that Mr Boyle will come out of the county jail reformed? What are the odds that the two incidents for which he was arrested are the only two attempts he made to lure young girls? After his first arrest, if there was ever any chance that Mr Boyle could somehow restrain his sick urges, that chance was obviously zero to judge by the fact that he offended a second time.

The fear of jail didn’t stop him from that second offense, so what are the chances that 11½ to 23 months in county will create enough of an overriding fear that his unnatural urges won’t get the better of him again?

Unfortunately, Mr Vella’s story did not tell us what kind of jail time he was facing. He was charged with “two counts each of felony luring a child into a vehicle, felony unlawful contact with minors, and felony corruption of minors, according to court records.” Under 18 §2910(a)(a.1)(2) Luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure is a second-degree felony, which, under 18 §106 (b)(3) carries a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. He could have been locked up for twenty years just on those two counts.

Was Mr Boyle given a lenient plea deal so the children would not have to testify? That kind of thing happens a lot. However, child pornography was found on his cell phone, and that, too, is a felony. Under 18 §6312(d)(d.1)(2)(i) simple possession of child pornography is a third degree felony, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, and none of the victims would have had to have testified for that charge to have been brought to trial.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has provided for strict sentences for the sexual abuse of children and preying on them, but, as happens far, far, far too often, in many of our states, the criminal justice system is far too lenient in imposing sentences for these crimes.

Gary Plauché was unavailable for comment.

 

 

Posted on by

We should never release murderers until their victims come back to life!

Every Sunday morning during Mass, Catholics make our Profession of Faith, which ends:

I look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of world to come. Amen.

Other than Christ Jesus, we believe that no one has yet been resurrected from the dead. That is the case with the victims of murder here on earth, but some people seem to believe that those who commit murders should be released from prison before the person they killed is resurrected from the dead.

Should life without parole be mandatory for second-degree murder? The Pa. Supreme Court is weighing the issue.

Efforts to challenge the statute and the penalty have been persistent but unsuccessful over the years

by Chris Palmer | Tuesday, October 8, 2024 | 2:07 PM EDT

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court justices on Tuesday debated whether the state’s mandatory sentence of life without parole for second-degree murder is constitutional — an issue that has long been eyed for reform by a mix of advocates and some legislators.

Under state law, people who participate in a deadly felony — such as a robbery — can be charged with the crime, also known as felony murder, even if they didn’t commit the killing or intend for anyone to die. A conviction leads to an automatic life sentence, and more than 1,100 people are serving that penalty in Pennsylvania, which is one of only two states nationwide to mandate incarceration for life for felony murder convictions.

The law is Pennsylvania Title 18 §2502(b), reproduced above. I point out here that even if the perpetrators did not go into their crime intending to kill anyone, if they were committing a crime, while carrying weapons, they had to know that someone being killed was a possibility, and that they might not have intended for someone to be killed does not make someone who was killed during such a crime is no less dead than the victim in an intentional murder. Title 18 §1102(b) specifies the penalty as life imprisonment.

Efforts to challenge the statute and the penalty have been persistent but unsuccessful over the years. The issue landed before the state’s high court this week because an attorney for one of those defendants — Derek Lee, who took part in a fatal robbery in Pittsburgh in 2014, but whose coconspirator committed the killing — filed an appeal saying that the penalty is unduly cruel.

Isn’t killing someone “unduly cruel”?

Further down, we get the typical leftist argument:

Legislators have debated Pennsylvania’s sentence for felony murder for years. Beyond the challenge to the sentence as potentially cruel, advocates have pointed out that those imprisoned for the crime are disproportionately Black, that about half are from Philadelphia, and that hundreds have already served decades in prison, putting them beyond the age at which they’re likely to commit another crime.

Is the purpose simply to lock them up until they have passed the ages “at which they’re likely to commit another crime,” or is the purpose also to punish them for the crimes they have committed? Perhaps they will have passed the ages in which they are likely to commit other crimes, but their victims are still stone-cold graveyard dead.

“(A)bout half are from Philadelphia”? Perhaps they are, but it’s also true that about half of all murders in the Keystone State occur in the City of Brotherly Love.

“(D)isproportionately black”? According to the Philadelphia Shooting Victims Dashboard, accessed at 8:58 AM EDT on Wednesday, October 9th, the data on fatal shootings in the city from 2015 through October 7th, 75.71% of all fatal shooting victims were black males, and another 5.85% were black females. 11.1% were Hispanic males, while 1.25% were Hispanic females. Only 3.97% were white males, 1.25% white females, and less than 1%, 0.78% were Asians of either sex. Of course the criminals who killed them are going to be “disproportionately black”!

(Bret)Grote[1]How unserious is Mr Grote? He couldn’t even be bothered to clean up his beta male beard before going before the state Supreme Court. has been among the most vigorous advocates for change. He and the organization he works for, the Abolitionist Law Center, filed a lawsuit in 2020 contending that the state’s ban on parole eligibility for felony murder was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected that appeal two years later.

Image from main page of Abolitionist Law Center website, screencaptured on October 9, 2024.

Ahhh, the Abolitionist Law Center, which we have previously mentioned. What reporter Chris Palmer failed to mention, and did not hyperlink, is that the Abolitionist Law Center is opposed to incarceration for anything, opposes all prison sentences, and would, if they could, free every murderer, every rapist, every drug dealer, and every assailant locked up in Pennsylvania’s prisons.

We challenge every point on the criminal punishment conveyor belt including policing, courts, jails and prisons, and various forms of legal supervision, as well as other aspects of the carceral machine.

Boldface in the original.

TribLive.com carried more on this story:

Grote told the seven justices that if his client’s sentence is not struck down, Lee will some day die in prison because of the unintended consequences of his crime.

“This must no longer be the case in Pennsylvania,” Grote said.

Why not? After all, Leonard Butler of Pittsburgh died in his own basement, the result of a crime committed by Paul Durham and Derek Lee! Why shouldn’t Mr Lee die in prison?

Lee ordered Butler and his girlfriend into the basement and demanded money from them. Butler handed over his watch, and Lee went upstairs in the home, leaving Durham and Butler in the basement.

Butler attempted to lunge at Durham, the girlfriend testified at trial, and Durham shot him. . . . .

Justice P. Kevin Brobson countered (Mr Grote’s argument, saying) that Lee engaged in a violent home invasion, entered with a gun and pistol-whipped the victim.

So, Mr Lee was armed just as the actual shooter was!

Justice Brobson questioned whether Mr Lee’s case was the right one on which to base the Abolitionist Law Center’s case. I have to ask: what good would be served by releasing Mr Lee, either now, after he has served only eight years, or ever, for the people of Pennsylvania, or the family of Mr Butler?

Perhaps Mr Lee will find faith in God while he’s locked up; perhaps he already has. Perhaps he will be able to do some good while in prison, counseling others who do have hope of eventual release. Regardless of that, he participated in a felony murder, and should not be released until the day his victim comes back to life.

References

References
↑1 How unserious is Mr Grote? He couldn’t even be bothered to clean up his beta male beard before going before the state Supreme Court.
Posted on by

Killadelphia Yes, homicide is significantly down, but still more than thrice that of the rest of the Commonwealth

It was March 16, 2022, when this poor site noted liberal Philadelphia magazine reporter Victor Fiorillo‘s story about how applications for concealed carry permits had skyrocketed. He had expected an increase, following the 562 officially reported murders in the City of Brotherly Love, but “wasn’t exactly ready for just how big this increase has been.”

Mr Fiorillo doesn’t like Fox 29 News reporter Steve Keeley’s reports on crime in the city, just as WHYY reporter Cherri Gregg, who said his reporting “definitely makes me cringe,” while Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jenice Armstrong “wrote on Facebook: ‘His Twitter feed is also disturbing.'”

So, @phillyvictor, Mr Fiorillo’s Twitter handle, gleefully told us that homicides were down in the city, slamming Mr Keeley for not reporting on that:

Philadelphia Homicides on Pace for Historic Low. No, Really!

The news Steve Keeley won’t tell you.

By Victor Fiorillo | Tuesday, September 24, 202 | 3:29 PM EDT

If you’re addicted to local television news or Fox News or if you live your life based on 15-second blips on TikTok or whatever the awful Citizen crime app[1]Hyperlink not in Mr Fiorillo’s original, but added by me. I have assumed that this is the Twitter site to which he referred, but cannot say that I am certain. has to say, you are probably still convinced that Philadelphia is a desolate hellhole, the Wild Wild West of urban living, where anything goes and where crime is rampant and without consequence. The “car meetup” events from Saturday night into Sunday morning, which featured a ring of fire outside City Hall and at least one flamethrower, are probably all you can talk about. You’re living your best Steve Keeley life.

But here’s some news that Steve Keeley and his ilk can’t find the time to tell you: Philadelphia’s homicide count is on pace for a historic low. You read that right, and I’ll say it once again for those in the back: Philadelphia’s homicide count is on pace for a historic low.

Now, this isn’t fake news. This isn’t my opinion. This is real news based on, you know, facts. Data. Statistics.

According to the latest data provided by the Philadelphia Police Department, homicides in Philadelphia are down 40 percent in Philadelphia as of Tuesday morning compared to the same time period last year. If you think I’ve told you similar things in the not-too-distant past, you’re not wrong. Back in April, I cautiously reported that our homicide count was down 34 percent. I say cautiously because, well, anything can happen at any time, sending those numbers in the wrong direction. Also because we hadn’t yet hit summer, and generally speaking, summers are associated with more violent crime.

Well, friends, guess what? Summer is officially over. And we went from a 34 percent decrease in homicides as of April to a 40 percent decrease in homicides as of today. If we stay on that track, that would mean that we’d end the year with 246 homicides. And if we do that, 2024 would tie 2013 for the lowest number of homicides in Philadelphia for the last 56 years. To do better than that, we’d need to end the year with fewer than 234 homicides. That’s how many homicides the city saw in 1967. One can hope!

Perhaps so, but it comes back to the first story of Mr Fiorillo’s that I cited, concerning the surge in applications for concealed carry permits. And then this, from Thursday morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

One killed, one injured in gunfight during an attempted robbery that ended in SEPTA bus crash in West Philly

There were nine people — eight passengers and one driver — on the SEPTA bus, a SEPTA spokesperson said. Nobody was injured.

by Rodrigo Torrejón | Thursday, October 3, 2024 | 9:44 AM EDT

A 36-year-old man was killed and a 17-year-old was injured when gunfire broke out during an attempted armed robbery in Mantua on Wednesday night, police said. After the teen and his accomplice fled the scene in a getaway car, the car crashed into a SEPTA bus a block away.

The 17-year-old was identified as Sage Black-Rivera.

Police responded to a report of a shooting at a candy store on the 800 block of North 40th Street at 10:11 p.m., police said. When officers arrived, they found the 36-year-old man on the floor of the store with multiple gunshot wounds, police said.

The man, who police did not identify, was pronounced dead at the scene minutes later.

The victim had been in the store when a 17-year-old boy and another male tried to rob him at gunpoint, said Police Deputy Commissioner Frank Vanore. The 36-year-old man then took out a gun and fired at the two men, striking the teen.

The teen then shot the 36-year-old manm, said Vanore.

The two assailants then fled the store in what police believe is a Mazda, but only got a block away before the car crashed into a SEPTA bus near 41st and Brown Streets, said Vanore.

Miss Gregg complained that “it is not good reporting to simply repeat police accounts/narratives,” but that’s what Inky reporter Rodrigo Torrejón just did, as shown my Mr Keeley’s tweet with the image file of the police report.

There were nine people on board the Route 31 SEPTA bus, eight passengers and the driver, a SEPTA spokesperson said. No injuries were reported to anyone on the bus.

The two alleged robbers then fled on foot. Police later found the teen on the 700 block of Preston Street with gunshot wounds to his arm and chest. He was taken to Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, where he was placed in stable condition.

Homicide detectives are continuing to investigate. The 17-year-old boy has been arrested, and police are looking for his accomplice.

Mr Fiorillo noted, in the first cited story about concealed carry permits:

Of course, just because you’re denied doesn’t mean you’re not carrying, and carrying without a license is generally a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to five years in prison. But that charge can be upgraded to a felony depending on the circumstances.

It seems sadly appropriate that I’m writing about another Philly murder while drinking my coffee from a blood-red mug.

We have not yet been told whether the 36-year-old victim had a license to carry his weapon, but we do know that the unnamed 17-year-old did not have one, because such permits are not issued to minors. I am waiting on someone to whine that the 36-year-old victim would not be dead had he not been carrying a weapon and tried to defend himself, not that anyone can know that, but if he had been unarmed and simply handed over his wallet, both armed juveniles would have gotten away, and would still be out on the streets, waiting to rob at gunpoint someone else. At least now the 17-year-old will spend — hopefully — the rest of his miserable life behind bars, at least he will if the George Soros-sponsored, criminal loving District Attorney, Larry Krasner, charges him as an adult with second-degree murder, Pennsylvania Title 18 §2502(b). Under Pennsylvania Title 18 §1102(1)(c)(1), “A person who at the time of the commission of the offense was 15 years of age or older shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment the minimum of which shall be at least 30 years to life.”

Yes, homicides are down and crime is down in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, but there is still a culture in the city, and in most of our major cities, that allows crime to continue. Let’s use Mr Fiorillo’s statistics, estimating that Philly will finish with 246 homicides. With an estimated population of 1.55 million in 2023, that would still leave the city with a homicide rate of 15.87 per 100,000 population, significantly higher that the state’s 8.9 homicides per 100,000. Using the 2022 numbers — and the fact that the full 2023 numbers are not yet available is just plain sinful — Philly saw 514 homicides out of the Commonwealth’s total of 1,068, 48.13% of the total, when the city has only 11.96% of the state’s population. The rest of the Commonwealth had a homicide rate of 4.85 per 100,000 population, less than a third of Philly’s.

What will the numbers look like once full figures are available? Well, who knows, but even if they’re better than 2021, that won’t mean that they are good.

So, yes, things aren’t as bad as they once were, but if you live in Philly, you have slightly more than thrice the chance of being murdered than anyplace outside the city. It’s a shame that Mr Fiorillo didn’t mention that part.

References

References
↑1 Hyperlink not in Mr Fiorillo’s original, but added by me. I have assumed that this is the Twitter site to which he referred, but cannot say that I am certain.
Posted on by

Man, that Larry Krasner and his office are really stupid!

This site has previously noted the charges against former Philadelphia Police Officer Mark Dial. Officer Dial shot and killed criminal Eddie Irizarry when he believed that Mr Irizarry was reaching for a weapon.

The city’s George Soros-sponsored, police-hating and criminal-loving District Attorney charged Officer Dial with “first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and related offenses,” though, as you can see from Pennsylvania Title 18 §2502 above, first-degree murder was never an appropriate charge.

An at least reasonable case could be made for charging PA Title 18 §2503 Voluntary Manslaughter, a first degree felony, but there’s a high bar for the prosecution to surmount.

  • 18 §2503(b) Unreasonable belief killing justifiable. — A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 of this title (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.

Mr Krasner would have to prove that Officer Dial had an “unreasonable” belief that he was justified in shooting Mr Irizarry. Mr Irizarry had been driving erratically, and when he finally pulled over, he kept the car window up, was non-compliant, and raised his hand while holding a knife.

A Philadelphia judge dismissed all charges against Officer Dial, ruling that the prosecution had not presented evidence that a crime has been committed, so naturally the Usual Suspects decided that a riot was in order. Naturally, Mr Krasner refiled the charges, including first degree murder, and Mr Dial was rearrested, and denied bail.

Now, after nearly a year in prison, without having been convicted of anything, the former Officer is once again free on bail.

Mark Dial was released on bail after the Philly DA’s office dropped his first-degree murder charge

Dial had been in custody since last fall after he was charged with fatally shooting Eddie Irizarry in a traffic stop in Kensington.

by Chris Palmer, Ellie Rushing, and Rodrigo Torrejón | Thursday, August 9, 2024 | 10:50 AM EDT

The District Attorney’s Office has withdrawn a charge of first-degree murder against former police officer Mark Dial, a decision that prosecutors were effectively forced to make by a judge after failing to tell Dial’s attorneys about a key piece of evidence they intend to use against him at trial.

The decision, made Thursday, allowed Dial to be released from jail on bail to await a new trial date, now with a lead charge of third-degree murder. His case — which had been scheduled to begin in September — will now go before a jury in May 2025.

Dial’s bail was set at $200,000, and he paid the required 10% to secure his release shortly after noon Thursday, court records show.

The development served as the latest twist in the high-profile case, one that has taken an unusually circuitous path through the courts. Dial is accused of fatally shooting Eddie Irizarry during a traffic stop in Kensington last year, and his prosecution has now been tossed out, reinstated, and downgraded over the last 11 months.

Just what kind of ineptitude infests the District Attorney’s Office that they first made a mistake which got the charges dismissed, and now, if the first paragraph in the Inquirer’s story is accurate, they f(ornicated) up again. “(A)n unusually circuitous path”? That’s a polite way of saying that the DAO has been completely inept.

What was this whole charade other than an effort by Mr Krasner to punish Mr Dial pre-emptively, in case he couldn’t actually win a conviction?

Prosecutors months ago had hired an expert to prepare a report on whether Dial violated Pennsylvania’s use-of-force law for police when he shot Irizarry, a question that goes to the heart of the case and will determine whether Dial should be convicted. But prosecutors told Dial’s attorneys about the expert’s report only this week — something Dial’s lawyers said was unreasonable, and didn’t give them enough time to prepare a rebuttal.

Common Pleas Court Judge Glenn B. Bronson agreed, and said he did not want to delay the case and keep Dial incarcerated for months over an issue that prosecutors had effectively created.

“Why didn’t you tell them you were hiring an expert?” he said in court this week, later adding: “You sat on this for 10, 11 months.”

Judge Bronson offered the compromise, to reduce the top charge to third degree murder, which made Mr Dial eligible for bail. Prosecutors then urged the judge to restrict Mr Dial to house arrest, to punish him further, but the defense noted, to the judge’s satisfaction, that Mr Dial did not pose a flight risk.

All of the charges should be dropped, and Mr Dial compensated for the time he spent behind bars unjustly, and that compensation should come from Mr Krasner’s personal wealth.

Posted on by

A post of mine that will piss off a lot of people

My good friend Chaya Raichik — OK, OK, she has no idea who I am, bit I follow her on Twitter, posted:

Ryan Evans was charged with assault to r*pe a child in 2021. He was let free and sentenced to house arrest, awaiting trial. 3 months ago a judge loosened his curfew.

Now he was arrested again for luring a 5-year-old child behind a restroom and attempting to r*pe him.

Why does our justice system let violent child pr*dat*rs back onto the street to continue t*rr*rizing communities?

Naturally, the responses to Miss Raichik were almost uniformly supportive, but mine was different, and I would imagine it will be unpopular. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution specified that the accused have a right to a reasonable bail amount, meaning a bail that they can reasonably make, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

Mr Evans was charged with horribly serious crimes, crimes which, to me, merit life in prison without the possibility of parole if he is convicted, but that’s the point: he has not actually been convicted of anything yet. The judge in his previous case granted him bail, which he made, but put him on house arrest, complete with the requirement to wear a GPS ankle monitor. I can see the merit in that, but Mr Evena has been awaiting trial for three years now. Continue reading →

Posted on by

What about the right to a speedy trial?

George Aldridge, photo by Fayette County Detention Center, and is a public record.

On August 28, 2023, we noted the case of George Wayne Aldridge, previously accused of three sexual assaults in Lexington then being charged in a cold case from Louisville as well. Our August story concerned his bail reduction from $150,000 to $50,000.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution specifies that “Excessive bail shall not be required, but Mr Aldridge was unable to make the reduced bail amount, either. And that brings us to the present. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Lexington survivor terrified, ‘disgusted’ that alleged ‘serial rapist’ could be released

Continue reading →