Lowell woman convicted in fatal road rage shooting

[nordic alien]

Why as a society we allow these people to continue to breathe air is beyond me. When I'm in charge things will be much different.

View attachment 309202

if this was florida, texas etc she would fry

 

[hminsky]

Does anyone in MA ever go to jail for possession of a firearm without a license ? It seems like when someone is picked up for a serious assault or murder charge there is always a prior charge or charges of possession that were dismissed.

 

[MisterHappy]

if this was florida, texas etc she would fry

Years ago, but after the trial that I mentioned above, I was on a "Jury Simulation" where the "trial" was a civil case, involving a claim of wrongful termination by a manager at a fictitious company.

The plaintiff's attorney's closing arguments (on a really weak case) were a tug-at-the-heartstrings appeal to The Common Man. We found against the plaintiff.

Interesting thing was the people running the deal said that they presented the case, with the same actors, all over the country. Down south, they always won.

Different parts of the country are different.

 

[enbloc]

DRACUT — Graciela Paulino, the 21-year-old Lowell woman who allegedly shot and killed a man during a road rage incident in Lowell last year, was indicted last month in connection with an earlier incident in which she allegedly threatened people with a paint ball gun and assaulted police at McDonalds in Dracut.
~~~
When police began speaking with Paulino at the scene, she told them she had recently purchased a BB gun and paintball gun that she had with her, and “she went on to say it was her right to have them and to shoot them wherever she wants, including in the parking lot at McDonalds,” police wrote in a report.
~~~

Seriously? Nut Bag...

 

[Jason Flare]

Does anyone in MA ever go to jail for possession of a firearm without a license ? It seems like when someone is picked up for a serious assault or murder charge there is always a prior charge or charges of possession that were dismissed.

You can’t have low gun crime statistics if people are found guilty in court of gun crimes.

 

[bauer]

You can’t have low gun crime statistics if people are found guilty in court of gun crimes.

This

 

[AHM]

When I had jury duty, on a case that included armed assault (and ~6 other charges), the State's case was so terrible, that we "had" to let the guy walk, even though it was obvious that he was guilty. It's not as easy as you think, even when it looks like it's easy.

Q: How many of the jury members thought it was "obvious" that he was guilty?

One criminal case was a dwi.....knew damn well the guy was drunk and driving but it was pre mandatory breatholizer. He walked.

Q: How many of the jury members knew damn well that the guy was drunk and driving?

Because jury nullification goes both ways.
If a jury unanimously thinks that a defendant "needs convictin'"
(or if some don't, but they have better things to do than hash it out
to an acquittal ("12 Angry Men"-style), or hang the jury),
they can find him guilty no matter what the judge's instructions are.

If the judge thought the case had a fatal hole in it,
but let it go to the jury just in case they figured that out,
he can enter a judgment (of not guilty) notwithstanding the jury's verdict.


If not everyone agreed with you guys about the defendant being guilty,
I can't blame you for not tilting at those particular windmills.

Uncle Al was on an open-and-shut mugging trial in 1970's Fun City.
But two moonbat teachers were also in the jury and refused to convict.
After the verdict, the prosecutor was so gobsmacked that he pulled the jury
aside, said "what were you people thinking?", and showed them the guy's prior record
of convictions that he wasn't allowed to introduce into evidence.
But no one suggested that the jurors with a clue were supposed to spend
days grinding away at the moonbats.

When police began speaking with Paulino at the scene, she told them she had recently purchased a BB gun and paintball gun that she had with her, and “she went on to say it was her right to have them and to shoot them wherever she wants, including in the parking lot at McDonalds,” police wrote in a report.

Sucks to be her. But she's lucky that at least one nearby NESer I can think of
apparently doesn't like loitering in the parking lot at McDonald's.
I'm actually not even sure he carries,
but I'd never play such stupid games with him.

 

[milktree]

From article .. On Tuesday, Graciela Paulino, 22, was originally charged with murder in the shooting of Marc Devoe, a 34-year-old construction worker of Peabody.

Look at the dates. She's 22 *NOW*, but was 20 when it happened.

 

[enbloc]

Sucks to be her. But she's lucky that at least one nearby NESer I can think of
apparently doesn't like loitering in the parking lot at McDonald's.
I'm actually not even sure he carries,
but I'd never play such stupid games with him.

Wait. What? NamedPipes likes Mickey-D's too...?

 

[MisterHappy]

Q: How many of the jury members thought it was "obvious" that he was guilty?

Q: How many of the jury members knew damn well that the guy was drunk and driving?

Because jury nullification goes both ways.
If a jury unanimously thinks that a defendant "needs convictin'"
(or if some don't, but they have better things to do than hash it out
to an acquittal ("12 Angry Men"-style), or hang the jury),
they can find him guilty no matter what the judge's instructions are.

If the judge thought the case had a fatal hole in it,
but let it go to the jury just in case they figured that out,
he can enter a judgment (of not guilty) notwithstanding the jury's verdict.


If not everyone agreed with you guys about the defendant being guilty,
I can't blame you for not tilting at those particular windmills.

Uncle Al was on an open-and-shut mugging trial in 1970's Fun City.
But two moonbat teachers were also in the jury and refused to convict.
After the verdict, the prosecutor was so gobsmacked that he pulled the jury
aside, said "what were you people thinking?", and showed them the guy's prior record
of convictions that he wasn't allowed to introduce into evidence.
But no one suggested that the jurors with a clue were supposed to spend
days grinding away at the moonbats.


Sucks to be her. But she's lucky that at least one nearby NESer I can think of
apparently doesn't like loitering in the parking lot at McDonald's.
I'm actually not even sure he carries,
but I'd never play such stupid games with him.

Re the question to my previous:

We ALL knew it. We sat at the table in the deliberation room, after (7) days of testimony, and someone said, "OK, who thinks he's guilty?" in an informal way. We all did. If you went to Central Casting, looking for a bad guy, dressed up in a suit for court...this was him.

Then, we sat down and reviewed the actual evidence presented, and had to let him off on several counts. Because of a few factors, mostly because the State's case sucked.

After the trial, the Judge came in and shot the sh!t for a bit, and told us that he'd previously entered a guilty plea, an retracted it, because he didn't understand the sentence. So, he was guilty, but the Judge though we'd got it right, based on the evidence presented.

 

[whacko]

Q: How many of the jury members thought it was "obvious" that he was guilty?

Q: How many of the jury members knew damn well that the guy was drunk and driving?

Because jury nullification goes both ways.
If a jury unanimously thinks that a defendant "needs convictin'"
(or if some don't, but they have better things to do than hash it out
to an acquittal ("12 Angry Men"-style), or hang the jury),
they can find him guilty no matter what the judge's instructions are.

If the judge thought the case had a fatal hole in it,
but let it go to the jury just in case they figured that out,
he can enter a judgment (of not guilty) notwithstanding the jury's verdict.


If not everyone agreed with you guys about the defendant being guilty,
I can't blame you for not tilting at those particular windmills.

Uncle Al was on an open-and-shut mugging trial in 1970's Fun City.
But two moonbat teachers were also in the jury and refused to convict.
After the verdict, the prosecutor was so gobsmacked that he pulled the jury
aside, said "what were you people thinking?", and showed them the guy's prior record
of convictions that he wasn't allowed to introduce into evidence.
But no one suggested that the jurors with a clue were supposed to spend
days grinding away at the moonbats.


Sucks to be her. But she's lucky that at least one nearby NESer I can think of
apparently doesn't like loitering in the parking lot at McDonald's.
I'm actually not even sure he carries,
but I'd never play such stupid games with him.

Guy was pulled over for speeding. Like 51 in a 40 if I remember right.....cop said speech was slurred and smelled booze. Driver refused breath test. There were remarks in the arrest report that the defendant tripped and fell on the way into the station for no reason. Judge instructed the jury that at the time of the trial breath tests were mandatory.....at the time of the arrest of the defendant they were not mandatory (case was a few years old) and that his refusal to take one could not be considered as evidence. His refusal to take the test was in the arrest report so the jury knew he refused.......but could not consider that as evidence. Jury also considered speeding may have been a sign he was not impaired......defense provided some testimony that most drunk drivers are below the speed limit.......not over.

More than likely he was driving drunk and to this day I think he got away with it...........but without a breath test or road side test it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt....jury only deliberated for about 20 minutes and first vote was unanimous to not convict. He walked and I feel fine about it.....I was head jurer......beyond a reasonable doubt is......boyond a reasonable doubt and our system is set that was for a reason. Sometimes guilty go free to ensure not guilty don't get convicted.

 

[AHM]

Wait. What? NamedPipes likes Mickey-D's too...?

Now you've got me wondering whether the individual in mind
could possibly have an online affect more different than 'pipes.
Which is probably a fool's errand for anyone, let alone me.

(So I've admitted it's not him; not a lot of data in that).

Re the question to my previous:

We ALL knew it. We sat at the table in the deliberation room, after (7) days of testimony, and someone said, "OK, who thinks he's guilty?" in an informal way. We all did. If you went to Central Casting, looking for a bad guy, dressed up in a suit for court...this was him.

Then, we sat down and reviewed the actual evidence presented, and had to let him off on several counts. Because of a few factors, mostly because the State's case sucked.

After the trial, the Judge came in and shot the sh!t for a bit, and told us that he'd previously entered a guilty plea, an retracted it, because he didn't understand the sentence. So, he was guilty, but the Judge though we'd got it right, based on the evidence presented.

Yeah, but what did the judge really think? Heh.

Wonder if the Old Boys Club is strong enough that the judge
took the prosecutor aside and gave him the pro-tip:
"you lost because even the jury realized you didn't cover all the bases;
i.e., you suck."?

And no, I'm not gonna stand on my hind legs and claim all 12 of you
should have gone nuts and convicted because the defendant's affect
spackled the gaps in the evidence.

But if the judge was shooting the breeze with you,
it would have been awesome for someone to ask him,
"if we'd decided as a group to make a statement and returned guilty verdicts,
was the prosecution's case so full of holes that you would have
set the verdict aside?".

Guy was pulled over for speeding. Like 51 in a 40 if I remember right.....cop said speech was slurred and smelled booze. Driver refused breath test. There were remarks in the arrest report that the defendant tripped and fell on the way into the station for no reason. Judge instructed the jury that at the time of the trial breath tests were mandatory.....at the time of the arrest of the defendant they were not mandatory (case was a few years old) and that his refusal to take one could not be considered as evidence. His refusal to take the test was in the arrest report so the jury knew he refused.......but could not consider that as evidence. Jury also considered speeding may have been a sign he was not impaired......defense provided some testimony that most drunk drivers are below the speed limit.......not over.

Yes, that "suspiciously slow" behavior is a thing.
So is trying to reach escape velocity.
So is coasting to a stop (maybe in the middle of the road).
The distribution's lumpy, and I'd consider any defense attorney
citing some speed as doubtful to just be "making <bleep> up".

Actually, cruise control takes some of the variability out.
A drunk driver can make a poor choice for their speed setting,
but over time people's pacing will be less jerky.
Same goes for active lanekeeping. Yeesh.

More than likely he was driving drunk and to this day I think he got away with it...........but without a breath test or road side test it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt....jury only deliberated for about 20 minutes and first vote was unanimous to not convict. He walked and I feel fine about it.....I was head jurer......beyond a reasonable doubt is......boyond a reasonable doubt and our system is set that was for a reason. Sometimes guilty go free to ensure not guilty don't get convicted.

I don't know the modern conviction rate for DUIs that go to trial,
but if you read DUI lawyers' online preening about their elite defense strategies,
that jury has a lot of company.


So thanks much to both of you guys for sharing those details.