Well, obviously, it was his evil twin!

Right........

But they all look alike.

/ducks

KatjaMouse: [i497.photobucket.com image 320x257]

^ This ^

My bad...

cman: "Both sides in this case were spectacularly incompetent"

From the judge. Could not have said it better myself.

And the dude's attourney takes all the credit for getting his guy cleared of the charge.

He's also spectacularly douche-y.
/yea yea, lawyer...

You would think that there might be a "database" some where that they would run the time of the offense against, very early on, just to rule out suspects.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

"Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

Ray said Montgomery was in and out of custody so many times he did not remember exact dates. The defendant even testified in his trial and never brought up the startling fact.

"He couldn't remember. We asked him where he was on all the cases he's been charged with," Ray said. "He just couldn't remember, for that particular date, where he was."

So, this guy has been in and out of jail so much that even he couldn't remember whether he was in jail or not during the crime? That shouldn't have made me laugh, but I did.

Oh, and dude has FIVE more robbery charges pending...maybe he can get out of one or two of those with this defense.

Makes you wonder how many people are wrongfully convicted to genuinely don't have/can't remember an alibi?

Pushing the blame on the defence council is dodgy at best. Last time I checked, you don't to prove innocence.

JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Bonus: look at the date he started his jail stints, and accumulating other crimes.

"Shanthina" must have thought it was a GREAT idea to marry, AND have a kid with someone with multiple felony convictions, who was still facing significant amounts of jail time. Or perhaps the baby is her primary source of income?

/asbestos suit

I wonder if the psychological make-up of the typical prosecutor features a diminished capacity for chagrin. Uncle was #2 in Cook County during sixties and seventies. Not terrible susceptible to social feedback, IMHO, was that guy.

JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

farkingfun: Makes you wonder how many people are wrongfully convicted to genuinely don't have/can't remember an alibi?

Pushing the blame on the defence council is dodgy at best. Last time I checked, you don't to prove innocence.

*not available in all states. void where prohibited. not applicable to minorities or sex charges.

/Hell, if the judge likes the lawyer, you are halfway farked(or golden).

Incog_Neeto: JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's just saying this guy isn't "innocent" because he, in all likelihood, he has committed other crimes, and should that turn out to be the proven case, should be jailed for them. I don't see anywhere in the original post that implies it's okay to jail him for this one. In fact, his attack of the prosecutor and defense attorney actually seems to indicate the opposite. What happened shouldn't have happened, and only did because they didn't do their jobs correctly.

Incog_Neeto: JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

Yes - that is what he is saying. What part of his post didn't you understand?

Trance750: Back when we were kids, by best friend's dad beat his butt for something he didn't do, and when it was brought to light that he didn't do it, his dad just said 'Well, you prolly did something I didn't know about. So ilet's just say it was for that'

I think that's an old Cosby bit, but very true of my generation.

The Irresponsible Captain: You would think that there might be a "database" some where that they would run the time of the offense against, very early on, just to rule out suspects.

We don't let facts get in the way of a good convictin'.

farkingfun: Makes you wonder how many people are wrongfully convicted to genuinely don't have/can't remember an alibi?

Pushing the blame on the defence council is dodgy at best. Last time I checked, you don't to prove innocence.


Well, that's the THEORY, at least.

/Try telling that to the judge

Allornone: Incog_Neeto: JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's just saying this guy isn't "innocent" because he, in all likelihood, he has committed other crimes, and should that turn out to be the proven case, should be jailed for them. I don't see anywhere in the original post that implies it's okay to jail him for this one. In fact, his attack of the prosecutor and defense attorney actually seems to indicate the opposite. What happened shouldn't have happened, and only did because they didn't do their jobs correctly.


Indeed. Perhaps the prosecuting attorneys need to spend a bit of "quality time" with Corrections Officers, so they'll be more careful next time.

I'm not terribly surprised that this was missed, and I don't really see this as 'incompetence' on either side. When I pull criminal histories, I only get dates of arrest, not dates of incarceration. So if he was arrested four days before the crime, but not released for a week or two weeks, the criminal history wouldn't reflect that.

I wonder what the report was that the defense had, and whether it was available to the prosecution; if so, then the 'incompetence' line might be appropriate.

FTA:Ray said Montgomery was in and out of custody so many times he did not remember exact dates. The defendant even testified in his trial and never brought up the startling fact.

plus he still has 5 other charges pending?

Yeah, I'm not losing any sleep over this guy. If you've been in prison for so many crimes, that you don't know if you did a particular crime or not, it's time to remove your from everyone's misery.

I vote for exile to a prison colony. In deep space. Shot out of Earth orbit with a rail gun. And you're on your own for survival gear

/I wonder if eventualy the solar winds would cause a large chuck of exiled prisoners to clump together like the North Atantic garbage patch.

Aside from the judge, everyone in this case deserves a good biatch-slapping.

If can't remember whether or not you were in jail at a particular time because you were there so often, maybe it's time to reevaluate your career path.

"He swore the eyewitness identifying him were flat wrong."

Good old perfect record eyewitness testimony..

kronicfeld: farkingfun: Pushing the blame on the defence council is dodgy at best. Last time I checked, you don't to prove innocence.

It is 100% the defense counsel's fault. It's not the prosecution's job to raise and disprove the defendant's affirmative defenses. It's their job to present the evidence they have that supports his having committed the alleged crime. No doubt he was asked, either by a police officer or on the stand, where he was at the time of the crime, and his answer was that he didn't remember. How is it anyone's job but the defense counsel's to explore and prove whether he had an alibi?


Technically you are correct: In our adversarial legal system, prosecutors see it as their duty to try to convict anyone that think they can get away with convicting. They are not the least bit concerned with whether the accused is actually guilty or innocent, their only concern is whether they think a jury will "buy" their argument. Their single minded motivation is winning convictions - AND they regularly ignore / withhold exculpatory evidence in this pursuit.

Naturally, the reverse is true on the defense' side of the table.

That isn't the way it ought to be, but that's the way it is.

"It boggles the mind that neither side knew about this during trial," Ellis said Thursday. "Both sides in this case were spectacularly incompetent."

As was the defendant and the eye-witness.

What a joke.

Oh and what's up with his lawyer?

"I have freed a man from a life sentence, so if you want to say I'm incompetent for doing that, I'll accept that with a smile," Ray said.

He wouldn't have been given that sentence if you had done your job.

Patting yourself on the back?
Really?

LegacyDL: [img.poptower.com image 600x400]

Right........

Aaaand we're done!
L.A.C. was the best damn revenge movie ever.

kronicfeld: Amos Quito: AND they regularly ignore / withhold exculpatory evidence in this pursuit.

Which has what to do with this case, where the exculpatory evidence was unknown to anyone?


Ideally a prosecutor would want to make damn sure that their case was iron clad - which would mean not only constructing their arguments based on incriminating evidence, but also reviewing any potential issues that might be raised by the defense - such as an alibi. If in the course of investigation potentially exculpatory evidence were discovered, it should be revealed to the defense and to the court.

Of course this would be far too time consuming (and would result in far fewer convictions) so they opt for the adversarial approach, and more innocents end up being convicted.


/I would make a lousy prosecutor

The Irresponsible Captain: You would think that there might be a "database" some where that they would run the time of the offense against, very early on, just to rule out suspects.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! don;t get me wrong I'm sure there is a database somewhere but it's probably incompatible with other systems and definitely not crosswalked or linked/joint to other databases that can be easily mined. That and probably no one knew where to look. Probably store in the local server at the jail or whatever.

At my work place we can;t even get the dozens databases to standardized and easily mined and accessible and it's only one company!

Just goes to show you can find an "eyewitness" to say whatever the hell you want them to. How many times does this particular kind of testimony have to be proven both wildly inaccurate and extremely prejudicial before we ban or severely restrict its use?

Heron: Just goes to show you can find an "eyewitness" to say whatever the hell you want them to. How many times does this particular kind of testimony have to be proven both wildly inaccurate and extremely prejudicial before we ban or severely restrict its use?


Eye see what you did there.


/Busted

kronicfeld: farkingfun: Pushing the blame on the defence council is dodgy at best. Last time I checked, you don't to prove innocence.

It is 100% the defense counsel's fault. It's not the prosecution's job to raise and disprove the defendant's affirmative defenses. It's their job to present the evidence they have that supports his having committed the alleged crime. No doubt he was asked, either by a police officer or on the stand, where he was at the time of the crime, and his answer was that he didn't remember. How is it anyone's job but the defense counsel's to explore and prove whether he had an alibi?

And it's the prosecutor's -and the police's- job to turn over to the defense all exculpatory evidence. If the prosecutor and police honestly didn't know he was in the clink at the time, I'll eat my hat.

Heron: kronicfeld: farkingfun: Pushing the blame on the defence council is dodgy at best. Last time I checked, you don't to prove innocence.

It is 100% the defense counsel's fault. It's not the prosecution's job to raise and disprove the defendant's affirmative defenses. It's their job to present the evidence they have that supports his having committed the alleged crime. No doubt he was asked, either by a police officer or on the stand, where he was at the time of the crime, and his answer was that he didn't remember. How is it anyone's job but the defense counsel's to explore and prove whether he had an alibi?

And it's the prosecutor's -and the police's- job to turn over to the defense all exculpatory evidence. If the prosecutor and police honestly didn't know he was in the clink at the time, I'll eat my hat.

I bet they didn't. Hope your hat is made of bacon.

Incog_Neeto: JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

===============================================================

Well based on the abridged criminal history we are given in the article, this person has shown time and time again that he is incapable of operating in a civil society within the bounds of the established and socially agreed-upon rules of conduct. So in truth the guy should have been permanently seperated from the rest of the population a long time ago. Clearly this individual is either incapable of understanding that it is unacceptable to commit robbery, or he simply does not care. Either way, the right thing to do in the interest of protecting society is to lock this person away from society until he is not longer a threat.

More evidence that eyewitness testimony means shiat.

"Yes, I recognize the black guy I saw for two seconds in the dark, who I had never before seen in my life, as the killer."

lisarenee3505: Well based on the abridged criminal history we are given in the article, this person has shown time and time again that he is incapable of operating in a civil society within the bounds of the established and socially agreed-upon rules of conduct. So in truth the guy should have been permanently seperated from the rest of the population a long time ago. Clearly this individual is either incapable of understanding that it is unacceptable to commit robbery, or he simply does not care. Either way, the right thing to do in the interest of protecting society is to lock this person away from society until he is not longer a threat.

FTFA:Now facing just five other counts of robbery, Montgomery remains in custody. He has been convicted of several robberies and assaults since 1998.

A bullet would be much cheaper. Not kidding.

lisarenee3505: Incog_Neeto: JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

===============================================================

Well based on the abridged criminal history we are given in the article, this person has shown time and time again that he is incapable of operating in a civil society within the bounds of the established and socially agreed-upon rules of conduct. So in truth the guy should have been permanently seperated from the rest of the population a long time ago. Clearly this individual is either incapable of understanding that it is unacceptable to commit robbery, or he simply does not care. Either way, the right thing to do in the interest of protecting society is to lock this person away from society until he is not longer a threat.


I agree. Either he's the unluckiest man in the world, or prison is his natural home.

That does not excuse his being wrongfully convicted of a crime that he COULD NOT have committed, however, and as a result of this sloppy work on both sides, the cops stopped looking for the actual robber long ago - and he is no doubt continuing on his criminal career path.

Wrongful convictions are not only bad for the convicted, they damage society at large.

Incog_Neeto: JustGetItRight: "Free my husband," Shanthina Guillory Montgomery said as she bounced the couple's 2-year-old daughter on her hip. "He's an innocent man."

He's not guilty of this particular crime, but based on the article he is far from an innocent man.

Oh, and both the prosecutor and defense attorney need to be working as greeters at Wal Mart. They can supervise the lead detective (who certainly pulled is criminal history) as he gets the shopping carts out of the parking lot.

So what your saying is that because he's probably guilty of something else it would have been fine to sentence him to life for a crime he didn't commit?

Not at all, hence my statement about what should be the future employment chances for those involved. I work for a law enforcement agency. Pulling criminal history and jail records is one of the first things our guys do. The defense attorney's lazy but the prosecution was blatantly incompetent. Not only did they convict an innocent man, there's a guilty one still walking the street.

Having said that, he's clearly a career criminal that won't ever be rehabilitated. The statement I highlighted is just plain silly.