VictoryCabal: haemaker

Wat?

Didn't get the memo, VictoryCabal? EVERYTHING is Obama's fault. Everything. In fact, he's even responsible for my slightly over-browned waffles this morning. God damnit.

Is subby trolling a logical legal decision based on the facts and the letter of the law? That takes a special kind of stupid.

Back to the topic:

They're trying to limit the utility of the "translator screwed up" appeal, because otherwise it'd be a skeleton key for jail cells. Both ways suck, really, but I can't summon a whole lot of outrage here.

The last name is Oingo Boingo?? Really?

What was your name again?

If the evidence is indisputable, does it really matter what this guy had to say? Is it actually possible to talk your way out of murder if there is solid proof of guilt?

There is no doubt he killed his girlfriend by shooting her in the head. The only dispute is whether he get a 2nd or first degree murder conviction. He was trying for 2nd degree and he was convicted of 1st degree murder.

Here are some details I found regarding what kind of a nice fellow this guy is:

Earlier in the week Ouanbengboune testified in his own defense, saying he went to the club intending to kill himself, not Bunyou, but became enraged when she insulted him.

Speaking Laotian -- the language of the Southeast Asian country of Laos -- through an interpreter, Ouanbengboune said he spent the day leading up to the shooting snorting large amounts of powdered methamphetamine and thinking suicidal thoughts.

He was sad and angry, believing that Bunyou looked down on him like a dog. He decided to kill himself in front of her to show him how deeply he loved her, he said. But he needed to talk to her first.

That night, he took a bus to the Bangkok Boom, a nightspot near Valley View Boulevard and Desert Inn Road that they both frequented regularly, and waited for her outside. When she came out, he asked her why she had lied to him, but she yelled at him and insulted him, Ouanbengboune testified.

He was especially hurt when Bunyou maligned his mother, who had nothing to do with the argument, he said, weeping as he recalled it.

Ouanbengboune then pulled his gun, an old-fashioned .357 revolver, out of his pocket and shot her in the leg, he said. She slumped to the ground. He said he didn't remember firing the second shot, but he knew it hit her in the back of the head.

Witnesses to the shooting said he looked down at Bunyou, aiming the gun carefully, as he fired into her head at close range.

Ouanbengboune then fled to Oklahoma, where he stayed with friends and was arrested a week later after a five-hour standoff with the FBI.

I speak jive.

It puts the Laotian on the skin...


/nothin, got it.

Sounds like a strong argument for learning the language of the land you want to live in.

Merky: Is subby trolling a logical legal decision based on the facts and the letter of the law? That takes a special kind of stupid.



Indeed. This sort of thing happens all the time. If all of the evidence says you did it, and a few prejudicial (but factually insignificant) things happen along the way, you're still guilty. It all comes down to this: If all else remained the same, and the complained about issues weren't present, what would the impact be?


"Your honor, I'm aware that the video clearly shows me stating my name before decapitating the old lady, but my lawyer was a doodoo head, ergo I am innocent!"

*Judge facepalms*

Yutes?

atheist1295: Merky: Is subby trolling a logical legal decision based on the facts and the letter of the law? That takes a special kind of stupid.

Indeed. This sort of thing happens all the time. If all of the evidence says you did it, and a few prejudicial (but factually insignificant) things happen along the way, you're still guilty. It all comes down to this: If all else remained the same, and the complained about issues weren't present, what would the impact be?

"Your honor, I'm aware that the video clearly shows me stating my name before decapitating the old lady, but my lawyer was a doodoo head, ergo I am innocent!"

*Judge facepalms*

It's even funnier than that. FTFA:

Ouanbengboune in his appeal argued the translation errors were used by prosecutors to show the shooting was premeditated.

However, the opinion written by Chief Justice James Hardesty said "overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that Sonny acted with premeditation."

We aren't arguing innocence vs. guilt. It is full well admitted he is guilty. No, we're arguing about whether it was pre-meditated or not. And the court ruled that there was overwhelming evidence elsewhere that proved it was premeditated.

Fark you subby for implying this is a guilt vs innocence thing. You're as dishonest as the translator in question.

panda: VictoryCabal: haemaker

Wat?

Didn't get the memo, VictoryCabal? EVERYTHING is Obama's fault. Everything. In fact, he's even responsible for my slightly over-browned waffles this morning. God damnit.

I'm still pissed he canceled Arrested Development.

sen
Sen!
SEN!

I am tuning my tiny violin.

jst3p: Sounds like a strong argument for learning the language of the land you want to live in.

So what's the official language of the U.S.A.?

---Official Court Transcript Start---

Defendant: [Laotian Gibberish]
Defendant's Translator: Yes, You Honor, I admit complete guilt. I did it. I did everything the Prosecutor says I did. I deserve anything you give me. My Translator is a wonderful human being and deserves a raise.
Judge: Well then. Let us proceed to sentencing.

---Official Court Transcript End---


I see nothing out of order here. Sentence stands.

What a pissed off Laotian may look like.


/Hot like mok kai pa

Thank god for Nevada and Arizona. Serving as historical models of a time when farkheads operated as if there were no law other than their own little baliwick, and the Constitution was just some sort of guideline that actual states used.

skinink: jst3p: Sounds like a strong argument for learning the language of the land you want to live in.

So what's the official language of the U.S.A.?

There is none, but it looks like if you are charged with a crime they are going to convict you in English. Seems like a good one to learn if you ask me.

A couple thoughts here:

1. It is not the judges' decision if the facts showed premeditation or not. That is a jury question. Personally, I think anything which might have been relayed falsely to a jury is pretty strong grounds for a new trial. The judge's place here traditionally is to determine whether a significant procedural error occured. I would call mistranslantion a significant procedural error.

2. I am interested to see if they may try to take it to the US district court of appeals on an appeal of due process. One could infer that due process would be violated in allowing essentially incorrect testimoney, thus violating his constitutional rights. It would be an interesting argument.

Incredulous: jst3p: Sounds like a strong argument for learning the language of the land you want to live in.


Troll.

Not at all. But thanks for playing. I wouldn't imagine moving to another nation and expecting to get by in English unless that was the dominant language there too. I am not saying there is anything wrong with not speaking English if you live here, but learning it would be a wise move.

Welcome to Nevada, where every error is considered "harmless," and the Constitution is printed on toilet paper.

State appeals court upholds a crappy conviction? Whoa. Talk about un-news.

Get the transcript of 90% of criminal case appeals. State appeals courts are rubber stamps for prosecutions.

Translator != Interpreter

Translators translate text, interpreters interpret spoken words.



/translator
// not an interpreter

The headline is inaccurate, and the scary tag doesn't apply.

Pshaw, they wouldn't have arrested him if he weren't guilty! Amirite?

Nobody said official language they said language of the land. If someone from Russia asked what language they speak in the US what would your answer be?

If you say anything other than English I'd wager you are lying or are not a citizen.

nikknaack1: 2. I am interested to see if they may try to take it to the US district court of appeals on an appeal of due process. One could infer that due process would be violated in allowing essentially incorrect testimoney, thus violating his constitutional rights. It would be an interesting argument.

That jury heard his testimony first hand! It's not their fault that they didn't choose a jury which can understand Laotian.

The question I have is: Did the court only allow a court-appointed translator? He hired one after the fact to say that the translation was wrong. But was he allowed the opportunity to bring in his own translator in the first place?

jbrooks544: He was especially hurt when Bunyou maligned his mother

"What did you say about my mother?!"



/Taiwanese news re-enactment of the incident

panda: VictoryCabal: haemaker

Wat?

Didn't get the memo, VictoryCabal? EVERYTHING is Obama's fault. Everything. In fact, he's even responsible for my slightly over-browned waffles this morning. God damnit.

Was there an image of the Virgin Mary on them? :-)

nikknaack1: A couple thoughts here:

1. It is not the judges' decision if the facts showed premeditation or not. That is a jury question. Personally, I think anything which might have been relayed falsely to a jury is pretty strong grounds for a new trial. The judge's place here traditionally is to determine whether a significant procedural error occured. I would call mistranslantion a significant procedural error.

2. I am interested to see if they may try to take it to the US district court of appeals on an appeal of due process. One could infer that due process would be violated in allowing essentially incorrect testimoney, thus violating his constitutional rights. It would be an interesting argument.

Since the article lacks any fundamental information we are left to our own suppositions. As others have pointed out the judges felt that the errors didn't overcome the other evidence, but like you I'm not really comfortable with the general feeling that conveys.

It would be nice if the article mentioned specific errors this guy is trying to hang his appeal on. If the errors where truly prejudicial then certainly a new trial would be in order. On the other hand if the errors where simple things like the translator used a word when another word would have been slightly better, the guy is just grasping at straws.