On last.fm: Taylor Swift photos and free music!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 2 of 4:
Next »
« Previous
Facts of the case...
"An inference that the jury found the defendant to be actually innocent of the gun charge would be particularly far-fetched because there is no doubt that his accomplice brandished a gun during the attempted robbery in question. The judge thought the acquittal was due to the fact that the jury had learned from the cross-examination of one of the defendant's accomplices that to convict the defendant of a second gun charge would subject him to a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence."

You will find that in law, you are responsible for all consequences of your actions. For instance, say you rob a bank.
If the bank guard starts shooting at you and accidentally kills a bystander, YOU will be liable for that death as a homicide, because it occurred as a consequence of your robbery. In this case, I can see the judge taking into account that there WAS a gun involved, even if a jury did not find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant was guilty of a gun charge-we don't KNOW the jury's reasoning on this point.
Posted by: justanitguy   Posted on: 02/22/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Abuse of Power which I don't think the Judge has  nucrash | 02/21/07
Facts of the case...  justanitguy | 02/22/07
ebay_member  Teacee | 02/26/07
ebay_member  Teacee | 02/26/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Meet Doc