kingfisher
NES Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,624
- Likes
- 2,458
On its face, that's... words escape me. Did the two who were convicted at least possibly perpetrate the crime together?
Hilarious!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Being Charged with Carrying on Expired LTC
- Thread starter inkdesigner
- Start date
On its face, that's... words escape me. Did the two who were convicted at least possibly perpetrate the crime together?
Hilarious!
A few years ago, the court discovered a problem with Melanie's law (OUI). The enhanced penalties for a 2nd offense kicked in if one was "Previously convicted or ordered to a program". But on the breathalyzer refusal, they forgot the "or ordered to a program" language. The RMV was routinely suspending a license for three years for people with a CWOF who refused a BT. (A CWOF is not a conviction, but to get the benefit, you must attend a court ordered program). One guy took it to the SJC where they held that, although it was clearly not what the legislature wanted, it was what they wrote, and ordered the RMV to stop suspending licenses for three years. The legislature quickly fixed their error.
That would happen here if it wasn't gunz.
Blowing under .08 doesn't mean you're not necessarily under the influence. From G.L. c90, §24 "If such evidence is that such percentage was five one-hundredths or less, there shall be a permissible inference that such defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he shall be released from custody forthwith"
.05 or less is not under the influence. .08 or above is under the influence. Over .05 and under .08 could go either way.
The DAs (at least in Worcester County) don't dismiss ANYTHING unless there's a deal on the table. SOMETIMES the judge will dismiss the charge if he can be convinced that the accusation doesn't fit the crime, but as often as not they will not.
Case in point. Client (with LTC) charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, to wit: a spring assisted knife. I argued that (a) a spring assisted knife is not listed as one of the per se dangerous weapons (the same list that has the zoobow), (b) he was not alleged to be carrying it in a manner that made it dangerous, and (c) Chapter 269 Section 10 does not apply to someone with an LTC. The judge denied the motion, so now we're taking it to trial.
"No person having in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose, issued under section one hundred and thirty-one or section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty shall be deemed to be in violation of this section."
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,521
- Likes
- 33,535
True, but the court was quite clear - NOT meeting the standard for OUI of a vehicle does NOT mean one is not guilty of carry under the influence.
I'm well aware of that, and told my guy to take the CWOF, because there is no standard for carrying under the influence. I also let the judge know that since there is no standard, I advised my client to admit to sufficient facts, as he had admitted to consuming ONE beer. He got back his LTC, but who knows what will happen when his chief retires.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,521
- Likes
- 33,535
While the advice of STFU is generally good, it can lead to the conclusion that anyone with a bar card you hire is your personal Allstate. Not so - if you hire an attorney not specifically versed in gun law and rely on him/her for advice, decisions or strategy you can get screwed. Remember, the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is bad representation that goes beyond what a "normal fallible lawyer" would provide.
AHM
NES Member
The contrapositive of a case whose epic win I recall being laid at the feet of Abraham Lincoln.
(Two brothers accused of solo murder, each accuses the other;
Lincoln convinces the jury that since they both couldn't have done it,
there was reasonable doubt in the case of each, and so they had to acquit both.
Except that I can't find a fitting case of Lincoln's...).
Poor choice of words.
I still remember my parents' gobsmackage upon hearing
that Allstate was a particularly bad company to be insured by.
namedpipes
NES Member
Two very good (meaning very expensive) defense lawyers could have each gotten their clients free by pointing to the reasonable doubt that someone else was currently being prosecuted for the same murder. Incidentally, was either one of them actually innocent?
I believe Lt. Schrodinger either works or does not work for the Worcester Police Department, not Boston.
Are any of you guys up to the task of researching if there is in fact a police officer named Schrodinger working ANYWHERE in the US?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,521
- Likes
- 33,535
Unless, of course, the judge determines that testimony irrelevant and does not allow counsel to admit it. No idea if anyone was innocent or guilty in actuality.
On the bright side however, currently breathalyzers are a no go in court.
AHM
NES Member
Bingo: I totally misremembered the "out" in the trial in Young Mr. Lincoln.
With a CUI charge though, it's "good luck with that". The one case I am familiar with consisted of someone getting a CWOF despite the fact that his attorney more or less demonstrated that the context of the entire LE interaction was dubious at best, from a 4A standpoint, and for a moment it looked like the judge was almost going to tell them to f*** off (he was not impressed with how the "investigation" was conducted) then it got dragged out and someone "got to" the judge... and then when it lapped around, he more or less was forced to suck for a CWOF and probation. A jury probably would have let him off, but that's likely an additional large 5 digit sum of money and extra months of bullshit to make that happen rather than getting off cheap and letting it go away.
MA courts suck so bad WRT getting accused of anything that an outright dismissal is rare unless we're talking some kind of traffic violation etc. A friend of mine got "accused" by some douche in a road rage case and that piece of garbage and her lawyer dragged the case out for almost a year, and all he really did was swear at her through the window of his car as he drove away. Of course said stupid broad claims he hit her and this or that, despite witnesses claiming otherwise, but when the dust settled he still had to eat a CWOF and probation, because of the shit prosecutorial attitude in this state that if the "state brings charges it must be at least partially justified" etc, the whole thing is basically a f***ing clown show, especially if its a bench trial.
The only way to beat the system in MA is to have enough wealth or connections that you can prevent the case from really going anywhere. Few people can bring that level of "heat" in this state. Otherwise the next best alternative is to stay the f*** out of the jaws of the system, because once you're in, it's basically a
pit with a rape-prone silverback gorilla hopped up on meth bouncing around in it. And the longer you're trapped in that pit, the more rape that will occur. Most people end up taking the cwof rope ladder when it falls down, and most can't afford the required titanium anus protection belt to deal with a full bore trial, etc.
The best part of the whole system is even if you are innocent and you prove the state's case was f***ing garbage, you don't get back a f***ing dime.
IMHO a jury trial option on the verdict sheet should allow the jury to decide whether or not someone was maliciously prosecuted or not, and in turn punch the prosecutor/state straight in the rectum. Or even if it doesn't trigger an immediate verdict of that, it should trigger another trial of the state's actions, to be examined by another jury.... This would cause these types of trash cases submitted to plummet. We should live in a society where prosecutiorial discretion is frequently used to dump cases at a rapid clip that lack merit, especially when it's not a crime that involves theft or bodily harm to another.
ETA: Just to qualify... when I used the terms "cheap" above, I mean this sarcastically as "thousands of dollars" instead of "many, or many many thousands of dollars".....
-Mike
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,521
- Likes
- 33,535
Actually, it's "if the state brings a charge you are a pawn in the game of "ADA maintaining his/her win ratio"". A CWOF counts as a win for the ADA.
Yes, I realize it's a numbers game for them but I imagine that the judges justify that bullshit by saying things like "well they put a lot of time into this" blah blah obvs. it must be important" etc. A lot of them just ball- wash the prosecutor....
commodon
NES Member
General practice is to charge the suspect with as many offenses as possible, expecting there will be several that will be dropped along the way...
namedpipes
NES Member
I wish someone obscenely rich would deliberately commit some of these stupid "crimes" and then proceed to tie up the courts for decades with armies of lawyers and counter lawsuits etc. BURY them with so much BS the courts can't even tie their shoelaces.
If my winning $1.6B lottery ticket had not been stolen from me I'd do just that. Actually I'd pay someone ELSE to do the crime and then pay for s**tshow I described.
Last edited:
cockpitbob
NES Member
This is the big takeaway for me. Distilling it down to its essence, too many ADAs don't give a $hit about what's right and wrong. Their win/loss ratio is all that matters. Even if they know you are innocent, if they think they can convict with the evidence they have, they will ruin the rest of your life, and probably sleep better for it.
D
Deleted member 67409
It is up until 90 days and assuming there's no revocation and you're attempting to renew per ch. 140, sec. 131.
General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131
If the guy was indeed intoxicated, he SHOULD be charged and convicted with a DUI. If a 3rd offense he's a felon, f-ed for RKBA, and rightly so. Apparently no injuries to others, so if 1st or 2nd offense it's not a felony. Suitability comes into question from now on in MA but in other states I imagine the gun found in the bank would be no more remarkable than finding a hammer or wrench that spilled out of some drunk's car during a wreck. I'd feel bad for the guy if this was a one-time first offense mistake, but if not his first drunken rodeo all I really care about is that he stays off the roads.
Since they can't both be guilty of the same murder, clearly one of them is not guilty.
Therefore at least one of convictions is false.
Therefore they both should get new trials.
This is 2nd grade logic.
This stops holding water as soon as you look at C. 269 § 10(c), which is about sawed-off shotguns and machine-guns. Clearly the "this section" refers to §10(a), and not all of 269§10. If it did, anyone with an LTC could have a sawed-off shotgun or a machine-gun, and is exempt from reporting sales. §10(g)
namedpipes
NES Member
You're correct, but that's not the point he was asking.
Yes, you can lawfully carry for a period of time after your LTC expires provided you applied for a renewal prior to expiration.
If your LTC expires (and you did NOT apply for a renewal) and you are subsequently "caught" carrying, the penalty is a civil fine of $500(?). NOT a criminal penalty.
The problem is, you or your lawyer needs to know this and defend accordingly.
namedpipes
NES Member
They really should bring back caning.
It would adequately punish the offender and if it later turned out "oops" somebody else did it after all, nobody ruined their life or spend a decade behind bars.
It would adequately punish the offender and if it later turned out "oops" somebody else did it after all, nobody ruined their life or spend a decade behind bars.
amm5061
NES Member
I always thought that public flogging should still be administered as punishment for various crimes. That only really works if you do it publicly, though. People need to see the effect for it to be a deterrent.
Garys
NES Member
Similar threads
