Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   Judge: You are guilty. Your lawyer may give his closing argument now   (boston.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

23820 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2008 at 5:27 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-02-15 03:07:53 PM  
Reminds of the trial in Japan, the judge asked the defendant, "If are not guilty, why are you before me?" Or the old country sheriff telling some poor sap, "we gonna give you a nice fair trial, and then hang you".
 
2008-02-15 03:08:55 PM  
Hooray for judge neutrality.

/This world makes me sad.
 
2008-02-15 03:13:55 PM  
I saw that on TV. I know who that judge is, he's an asshole. He wasted our time and we had to come back the next day to get a restraining order because he "felt it wasn't necessary" after hearing about 10 seconds of our case.

He was filling in in Brighton District Court for the regular judge. Farking bastard judge, I hope he gets anal cancer.
 
2008-02-15 03:17:22 PM  
Awesome idea. Fark up his trial so he gets to walk because you violated his rights.
 
2008-02-15 03:19:18 PM  
I was on a jury where one of us was dismissed for less.
 
2008-02-15 03:26:35 PM  
Oh for Christ's sake. It wasn't a jury trial. It was a bench trial. The judge is the fact-finder, and his comments cannot prejudice himself. Judges - and juries, for that matter - quite often make up their minds long before closing arguments. They're hearing evidence throughout, balancing and reconciling that evidence as they go, and making credibility determinations constantly.

Complete non-story. This judge didn't do a damn thing wrong.
 
2008-02-15 03:29:47 PM  
In a related story, the judge also dismissed defendant's motion to change his name from "Joseph Nee" to "Joseph Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv".
 
2008-02-15 03:39:52 PM  
kronicfeld: Oh for Christ's sake. It wasn't a jury trial. It was a bench trial. The judge is the fact-finder, and his comments cannot prejudice himself. Judges - and juries, for that matter - quite often make up their minds long before closing arguments. They're hearing evidence throughout, balancing and reconciling that evidence as they go, and making credibility determinations constantly.

Complete non-story. This judge didn't do a damn thing wrong.


Well hell, a judge can stop a bench trial at any point and just declare Innocent or Guilty. Right?

We will see how this goes on appeal.
 
2008-02-15 03:44:54 PM  
Reading the story, it looks like they are both guilty of nothing more than thought crimes.

Wonderful.
 
2008-02-15 03:46:40 PM  
kronicfeld: Oh for Christ's sake. It wasn't a jury trial. It was a bench trial. The judge is the fact-finder, and his comments cannot prejudice himself. Judges - and juries, for that matter - quite often make up their minds long before closing arguments. They're hearing evidence throughout, balancing and reconciling that evidence as they go, and making credibility determinations constantly.

Complete non-story. This judge didn't do a damn thing wrong.


You just stop with all your fancy pants lawyerin', you.
 
2008-02-15 03:47:39 PM  
NightOwl2255: Well hell, a judge can stop a bench trial at any point and just declare Innocent or Guilty. Right?

That's not what I said at all.

The defense had rested and all evidence was in. All that remained was argument, which is not evidence. The judge was certainly well within his authority to have already weighed the evidence and made his decision without hearing closing argument.
 
2008-02-15 03:54:50 PM  
NightOwl2255: We will see how this goes on appeal.

This. It's almost as if the judge wanted to give him an easy reason for appeal.
 
2008-02-15 04:02:16 PM  
Like I said, I know this guy, he likes to get out of court early for his farking golf game.
 
2008-02-15 04:15:12 PM  
kronicfeld: NightOwl2255: Well hell, a judge can stop a bench trial at any point and just declare Innocent or Guilty. Right?

That's not what I said at all.

The defense had rested and all evidence was in. All that remained was argument, which is not evidence. The judge was certainly well within his authority to have already weighed the evidence and made his decision without hearing closing argument.


That is exactly what you said. "Judges - and juries, for that matter - quite often make up their minds long before closing arguments."
If it's a bench trial, and the judge "has made up his mind" why continue the trial?
 
2008-02-15 04:22:56 PM  
We got some winners here in MA, like that twat, Judge Maria Lopez.
 
2008-02-15 05:32:14 PM  
"I'm hopeful the town of Marshfield will be able to heal from this," he said.

Heal from what? Nothing happened.
 
2008-02-15 05:33:19 PM  
kronicfeld: Oh for Christ's sake. It wasn't a jury trial. It was a bench trial. The judge is the fact-finder, and his comments cannot prejudice himself. Judges - and juries, for that matter - quite often make up their minds long before closing arguments. They're hearing evidence throughout, balancing and reconciling that evidence as they go, and making credibility determinations constantly.

Complete non-story. This judge didn't do a damn thing wrong.


It certainly goes to show that he is biased. He is supposed to weigh the evidence at the close of the trial. They might declare a mistrial on appeal as a result.
 
2008-02-15 05:33:56 PM  
madmann: In a related story, the judge also dismissed defendant's motion to change his name from "Joseph Nee" to "Joseph Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv".

Wouldn't the papers then have to refer to him as
"Joseph Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv née Nee"?
 
2008-02-15 05:34:03 PM  
Due what?

Guilty until proven Guilty.

Welcome to the Republik.
Now shut up.
 
2008-02-15 05:34:41 PM  
Promotion of anarchy is a crime in Massachussetts?
 
2008-02-15 05:38:17 PM  

"Nee's father, Thomas, stormed out of the crowded courtroom, red-faced, muttering "This is due process?""


Just like a cop to storm out of the courtroom like a spoiled brat. Take it like a man, because I bet any other citizen would be brought up on some type of charge for acting out in front of a judge.

 
2008-02-15 05:38:56 PM  
all your rights are belong to us...
 
2008-02-15 05:39:20 PM  
i85.photobucket.com

Approves.
 
2008-02-15 05:39:29 PM  
"This was more than a couple of teenagers shooting their mouths off," she said.


Hur hur hurrrrr!

/shoot your mouth off
 
2008-02-15 05:39:29 PM  
I think this judge's nickname is 'Red Queen': "Verdict first, trial later."
 
2008-02-15 05:39:33 PM  
ArgusRun: "Promotion of anarchy is a crime in Massachussetts?"

I would cite Gitlow v. New York for a laugh, since Gitlow ended up losing the case anyways.
 
2008-02-15 05:39:43 PM  
This is why you should keep your thoughts to yourself.
 
2008-02-15 05:39:57 PM  
The defense attourney made a big mistake. He should have gone on and let the judge shoot his mouth off instead of stopping him short of declaring a verdict before the closing argument. Then he could have had the verdict thrown out in appellate court.
 
2008-02-15 05:40:07 PM  
can you say appeal?...

Doesn't matter what level of judical process,
there is still a process and it goes everywhere.

Even when I was in Traffic court, when the judge asked a biased question during the arraignment, I was allowed to request another judge.

Here the judge made a mistake of procedure during closing,
there will likely be an appeal,
and it will be dismissed or re-trial.
 
2008-02-15 05:40:34 PM  
ArgusRun: Promotion of anarchy is a crime in Massachussetts?

Reminds me of the time in high school when my friend and i thought we would make plans for anarchy then decided it sort of defeated the purpose. so we got drunk instead. (well, we were going to get drunk anyway, i suppose)
 
2008-02-15 05:40:39 PM  
after rtfa, I think the judge was just real pissed that the kid snitched on his friend first.

/Snitches Become Prison Biatches
//surprised that this didn't come up earlier
///is the closing argument really that important when it's the evidence that matters?
 
2008-02-15 05:41:33 PM  
The judge in question?

x6.no
 
2008-02-15 05:41:43 PM  
Evidence is not complete without an illustration of the mind of the accused. Intent is more important than trivia. Without it, all of the "facts" are without human context. Real conclusions can't be formed within if you don't know how the accused is formed within.

Motives and mentality.
 
2008-02-15 05:42:35 PM  
HotWingConspiracy: "I'm hopeful the town of Marshfield will be able to heal from this," he said.

Heal from what? Nothing happened.


Heal from imagining being killed in the imaginations of two boys. DUH!
 
2008-02-15 05:47:38 PM  
That's some good judgin' Lou....
 
2008-02-15 05:48:22 PM  
profanecleric: Hooray for judge neutrality.

/This world makes me sad.


You should hang yourself
 
2008-02-15 05:48:45 PM  
all your rights thoughts belong to us...

www.dailygalaxy.com
 
2008-02-15 05:49:11 PM  
"Authorities learned about the plan in September of that year, when Nee went to police with two classmates and told officers that Kerns was planning a massacre at the school. Nee told police the plan involved taking ammunition and explosive devices into the school, securing the school's exit doors with bicycle locks, and shooting students and staff."

Thomas Dreshler is THE atty for the Boston police. The kid got good representation. He's no fool. No jury, well, I dunno. I bet my socks there will be an appeal. If he went to the authorities about the plan, seems kinda logical that there was a plan, mostly kid BS that got out of control. He thought the other kid would really do it then got scared. So, WTF??? Seems to me he's getting railroaded by the judge. And, ya, we have some wackos on the bench here in Mass. Almost like they never went to law school
 
2008-02-15 05:51:15 PM  
tasteme:

Can I?
 
2008-02-15 05:51:20 PM  
ToxicMunkee

Heal from imagining being killed in the imaginations of two boys. DUH!

You mean there is more terrorists making an attack on imaginationland again? God help us all!!!!
 
2008-02-15 05:53:01 PM  
ArtosRC: ArgusRun: "Promotion of anarchy is a crime in Massachussetts?"

I would cite Gitlow v. New York for a laugh, since Gitlow ended up losing the case anyways.



I thought this sounded familiar. I took an undergraduate course in civil liberties for my minor. This was one of the cases we had to know. Amazing how little I remember 8 years later. I still remember a few of the biggies, but when you don't cite Stanley v. Georgia on a regular basis, I guess it starts to slip away.

/I might not cite it, but I certainly depend on it
 
2008-02-15 05:54:58 PM  
Boston Tag please
 
2008-02-15 05:59:53 PM  
Was it Judge Roy Bean who said, "You got anything to say before we find ya guilty?"
 
2008-02-15 06:00:52 PM  
Kyosuke: Reading the story, it looks like they are both guilty of nothing more than thought crimes.

Wonderful.


So you think nothing should be done until they kill somebody?
 
2008-02-15 06:02:31 PM  
I can haz mistrial?
 
2008-02-15 06:08:51 PM  
Sounds to me like this kid did the right thing and probably saved a few lives in the process.

Way to crucify him and ruin his life.
 
2008-02-15 06:12:34 PM  
wxboy: Kyosuke: Reading the story, it looks like they are both guilty of nothing more than thought crimes.

Wonderful.

So you think nothing should be done until they kill somebody?


For there to be a crime there has to be an action and a will to commit the crime, Actus Reas and Mens Rea. So yeah they should wait till he does something.
However I guess he was found guilty of conspiracy so the action is kind of taken out, but from the article I cannot tell if there was even enough for conspiracy. Sounds like a kid that was just using his imagination and his little punk friend reported him.
 
2008-02-15 06:13:19 PM  
wxboy: Kyosuke: Reading the story, it looks like they are both guilty of nothing more than thought crimes.

Wonderful.

So you think nothing should be done until they kill somebody?


Yes.

You know who else promoted persecuting people for their thoughts?
 
2008-02-15 06:14:14 PM  
Why the hell would this kid waive his right to a jury and opt for a bench trial? Based on the facts and circumstances, a judge would be much more likely to make an example out of him than a jury. He had the age thing going for him and the fact that nothing actually happened. Things with a huge stigma like domestic assault and rape, on the other hand, are almost always better left to a bench trial.
 
2008-02-15 06:15:47 PM  
www.fedtrek.com
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report