Pelham Mass Chief: ‘Improperly stored arsenal’ described in trial

[Chevy 2 65]

The defense did use the "licensed wife was home alone watching the guns" defense. It didn't work or at least it didn't work on all 22 of the allegedly exposed guns. It may have been a factor in the 10 acquittals but that still left 12 guilty verdicts... enough to further bankrupt him, take away his gun rights & collection and put him away for the rest of his life. Unbelievable but true, although some believe the sentence will be far less. The real goals were the felony conviction, a little House of Correction time, confiscation of his collection and forever PP status.

I don't believe the defense was ever really based on a "cops forced her from the house" defense. I believe the prosecution acknowledged that she was home with the guns. I believe it went more to that dubious "under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user" wording, further refined by the wording "under the control of a person if the person is sufficiently near the firearm to immediately prevent its unauthorized use" (or similar) from case law. In other words, yes she was there with the guns but not close enough to them at all times to meet the enhanced criteria.

Remember that the prosecutor dismissed all the testimony of the wife as simply the words of a clueless, loving wife just trying to protect her dastardly evil husband who likes killing children... and, apparently, the jury bought it.

Complete and total disregard for a citizens rights. What can the people do?

 

[Uzi2]

Complete and total disregard for a citizens rights. What can the people do?

Protest in the streets, just like BLM and all the other groups that protest in light of a BS cases of blatant abuse of office!!!

That's about the best you can do, short of taking up arms against every person involved with the case.....and that might even be the better option of the two given the circumstances.

 

[EJFudd]

Complete and total disregard for a citizens rights. What can the people do?

Protest in the streets, just like BLM and all the other groups that protest in light of a BS cases of blatant abuse of office!!!

That's about the best you can do, short of taking up arms against every person involved with the case.....and that might even be the better option of the two given the circumstances.

I think that in the short-term, we evil felon-in-waiting gunowners might want to consider bulk purchase of those inexpensive plastic DAC or Bell trigger locks (note: make sure they are on our MA-approved trigger lock list) and put them on all your guns even if you are relying on a locked "container" if that locked "container" is anything short of a store-bought gun safe that will stand up to anti-2A moonbat scrutiny in court.

Long-term, I'm going to follow this case and the appeal very closely. I am neither a Fleury hater or a Fleury fanboy, but I am deeply concerned about how this case and the appeal could affect any one of us.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

make sure they are on our MA-approved trigger lock list

The list is only relevant in determining if a lock is sufficient to meet the requirement for sale with a gun.

 

[EJFudd]

The list is only relevant in determining if a lock is sufficient to meet the requirement for sale with a gun.

Good point Rob, thank you. So in terms of satisfying the MA safe storage law, would those DAC and Bell plastic locks be sufficient or not?

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1014534682/dac-trigger-block-gun-lock

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/part-number-6-2024253-771733100328.do

 

[AHM]

Yes, but I don't think the plain view doctrine would allow a search of the entire premises without a warrant because contraband was found and seized in plain view.

Concur; discovery of inert contraband isn't a blank check to tear the house apart without a warrant.

On the other hand, back in the day police raiding a house would do the opposite of temporarily banishing occupants to the front lawn. From a footnote by the Court of Appeals of California in Sanderson v. Superior Court [of Stanislaus County] (1980):

... Just as police officers may not use the strategy of deliberately arranging to arrest a defendant while he is within certain premises so that the officers may take advantage of their presence to seize evidence in plain sight (Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at p. 767 [23 L.Ed.2d at p. 696]; see also 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra, § 6.7, pp. 491-492 and cases cited), by analogy, officers cannot move a person from room to room for the purpose of questioning as a pretext for seizing items open to their view.

(Emphasis mine).

I also seem to recall hearing of police moving detainees around within rooms so that they could open drawers, etc. "to sweep for concealed weapons which the detainee could lunge for".


(BTW, for fun rig a drawer to press the pushbutton on one of these babies when opened:



(Skip ahead 45 seconds).

Not only does hilarity ensue a minute after the button's pressed, but note how it becomes more strident if you don't silence it quickly.

Our cleaning lady has big mitts. Both of us about jumped out of our skins when it went off a minute after she moved the fruit bowl dusting the kitchen counter.

I armed the demo copy at You-Blew-It in Needham before buying the kit, and it went off before I figured out how to cancel the countdown. Talk about the "May I Help You riff"...

 

[weekendracer]

The bigger question is: How could a jury of supposedly normal IQ people not see this?

Have you ever been to jury duty? Every person I saw that looked like they didn't lick windows had some excuse to get out of it. Next time you get a jury duty notification, look back at this thread and realize you might be screwing someone out of a 'fair' trial.

edit: For the record, I got booted for being a LEO.

 

[namedpipes]

Have you ever been to jury duty? Every person I saw that looked like they didn't lick windows had some excuse to get out of it. Next time you get a jury duty notification, look back at this thread and realize you might be screwing someone out of a 'fair' trial.

edit: For the record, I got booted for being a LEO.

I got booted because I stated I would decide based on the Constitution. (It was a firearms possession charge)

I was a upset in retrospect cuz there were a couple hot ladies on the jury.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Good point Rob, thank you. So in terms of satisfying the MA safe storage law, would those DAC and Bell plastic locks be sufficient or not?

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1014534682/dac-trigger-block-gun-lock

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/part-number-6-2024253-771733100328.do

Probably, however, you have to look to Commonwealth v. Reyes for the specific non-guidance provided by the MA courts.

Remember, NEVER report a gun stolen. Report a trigger lock stolen, and provide info about the attached gun as a way to identify the stolen trigger lock.

 

[EJFudd]

Probably, however, you have to look to Commonwealth v. Reyes for the specific non-guidance provided by the MA courts.

Each time I re-read Commonwealth v. Reyes, my head starts to hurt. Nothing helpful there at all.

I'm going to go ahead and take a chance that the small plastic trigger locks that are on the approved list for the dealers (here) will provide me with the "belt plus suspenders" double defense I now feel I need after the Fleury verdict. Yes, that does constitute "Massprudence" (a word and concept I hate), but the safe storage law can literally be used to destroy you so this is probably money well spent.

 

[Lcstyle]

Have you ever been to jury duty? Every person I saw that looked like they didn't lick windows had some excuse to get out of it. Next time you get a jury duty notification, look back at this thread and realize you might be screwing someone out of a 'fair' trial.

We have met the enemy and, once again, he is us.

 

[Lcstyle]

So if the jury system is broken because our "peers" won't take part in it, we have to continue digging to find out what are the causes and factors behind this, and then work to correct them.

I'll start with a few reasons I think our jury system no longer works : Apathy, bystander effect, the fact that the system is designed to work in smaller communities where people know each other and not the impersonal crowded cities of today where no one cares etc. What are the other problems with our current jury system? And how do we fix them?

 

[amm5061]

What are the other problems with our current jury system?

Well, one would be the bullshit instructions that are given to the jurors to disregard certain key aspects of the trial which would result in a verdict unfavorable to the state. The other is when people like us get excluded from firearms cases because we believe in the constitution and due process.

And for the record, yes, I've sat on a jury and done my civic duty. I sat through two days of trial testimony and in the end was selected as an alternate and not allowed to be part of the jury deliberations. Sad as it was, because I actually felt the yout was not-guilty from what I heard.

 

[EJFudd]

So if the jury system is broken because our "peers" won't take part in it, we have to continue digging to find out what are the causes and factors behind this, and then work to correct them.

I'll start with a few reasons I think our jury system no longer works : Apathy, bystander effect, the fact that the system is designed to work in smaller communities where people know each other and not the impersonal crowded cities of today where no one cares etc. What are the other problems with our current jury system? And how do we fix them?

Well, one would be the bullshit instructions that are given to the jurors to disregard certain key aspects of the trial which would result in a verdict unfavorable to the state. The other is when people like us get excluded from firearms cases because we believe in the constitution and due process.

And for the record, yes, I've sat on a jury and done my civic duty. I sat through two days of trial testimony and in the end was selected as an alternate and not allowed to be part of the jury deliberations. Sad as it was, because I actually felt the yout was not-guilty from what I heard.

The trouble with the peers thing in this case is that many of his peers were the very people that did him in. And as you can see from comments in this thread, there are also a whole lot of "gun people" who hate this guy's guts for one reason or another. Whether justified or not from past alleged douchebaggery or from the 2008 incident, you are dealing with that twisted situation. Put another way, there was no way he was going to get a favorable jury (especially in NoHo) or a truly fair trial. And with 22 separate but identical charges against him, the split compromise verdict was almost a given. His best hope might have been for one or two sane jurors to have seen through the BS and hung the jury... but for this guy and this case, I'm sure the prosecutor would have tried him again.

+++

I, too, was on a jury once... jury foreman, in fact. Ugh! Drunk driving case. No one hurt but the driver and his friend and one large tree. The textbook perfect way the prosecution case was presented (multiple cops with flawlessly matching stories) , you have to wonder why the kid's lawyer even wanted there to be a trial. The 4 or 5 cops had a picture perfect story to tell and the kid's only real defense was that he wasn't all that drunk... he was tired and just had an accident.

He was found guilty, of course, and that might have been the end of the story... except that I later heard the exact same picture perfect story told in another case... same words right down to the last letter and even the same cute little jailhouse "twist" thrown in for good measure. Suddenly, I felt like I had been had. Two perfectly matching tales? Same cute little twist? What are the odds? The cops had obviously lied. I guess the ends justify the means, right? Next time, I won't be so naive.

 

[drgrant]

So if the jury system is broken because our "peers" won't take part in it, we have to continue digging to find out what are the causes and factors behind this, and then work to correct them.

I'll start with a few reasons I think our jury system no longer works : Apathy, bystander effect, the fact that the system is designed to work in smaller communities where people know each other and not the impersonal crowded cities of today where no one cares etc. What are the other problems with our current jury system? And how do we fix them?

The Jury system itself works fine- The real problem is the shit laws in place; then you end up pitting joe averageperson against joe averageperson, because the juror will suck for the DA or the judge saying "this is the lawr" and they can get away with it, because they're not even lying.

Think hard about it- Remove even 60% of the shit laws maybe rewrite another 20% to be "legally more sterile" and most of what we think of as "problems with juries" end up going away.

The other problem is that nullification should practically be a right- but it is not enumerated as such (IMHO it should be in the constitution, even) and even the few people aware of it are afraid to use it.

-Mike

 

[Lcstyle]

I think some of these laws are put in place because of shitheads that abuse their freedom and inevitably their actions cause outrage. Later those same outraged citizens say "Their ought to be a LAwr!"

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The trouble with the peers thing in this case is that many of his peers were the very people that did him in.

The origin of the term "jury of ones peers" did not mean you have people "like you", but that English noblemen were tried by juries of nobles, and commoners were tried by juries of commoners.

 

[EJFudd]

The origin of the term "jury of ones peers" did not mean you have people "like you", but that English noblemen were tried by juries of nobles, and commoners were tried by juries of commoners.

And now out in NoHo, we have a jury of ultra-liberal moonbat flower children from the Happy Valley hearing a case about an ex-CoP gun collector, already hated for a past incident for which he was found not guilty, who maybe didn't store all of his 200+ "dastardly weapons of war and death" exactly in accordance with moonbat law.

Peers? No. I would call this a jury of his sworn enemies.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

He was either not offered a standard CWOF plea bargain because of his record of being found not guilty or was too stupid to take the deal. Anyone here know which?

 

[EJFudd]

He was either not offered a standard CWOF plea bargain because of his record of being found not guilty or was too stupid to take the deal. Anyone here know which?

I am trying to find out more about the case as we speak. Not easy so far.

 

[Lcstyle]

The origin of the term "jury of ones peers" did not mean you have people "like you", but that English noblemen were tried by juries of nobles, and commoners were tried by juries of commoners.

So what changes would you suggest to the current system to bring the current state of this system back inline with the original intent of "jury of one's peers"?

I definitely think changes are needed. It seems like we have many different strata of people in our society at this point beyond just "nobles" and "commoners", or perhaps we need to setup some new system for distinguishing between a noble and a commoner. I really don't want to be judged by a jury of 12 nose pickers, unless I was guilty and could afford a brilliant attorney to fool them. Seems like this current system rarely works on one's behalf, the peasantry is angry und will Blut.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Let me offer a personal example of another aspect of jury selection that gets the jurors that do serve.

I was called to jury duty on a case involving some sort of construction dispute (Marina Bay). The judge asked if anyone ever had problems dealing with a contractor. Yes, he asked for details (my addition/renovations GC pulled his subs after getting all but the last $400 from me, the job was over $100K paid to him) and my GC left me with a few thousand in paid for but incompleted work. So then the judge asks me if I could "give the benefit of the doubt to a contractor" and I hesitated and replied that I wasn't sure. Dismissed! Now had he asked me if I could FAIRLY rule based on evidence given, I would have replied yes. But the judge was already skewing the jurors toward those that would believe someone in the trades "just because".

Another issue was that the trial was expected to last 6 weeks. So you get retirees, housewives with nothing better to do and students (it was Summer time) for a jury. No way I could afford to be missing from my work for 6 weeks!

 

[Lcstyle]

I'm guessing none of us would support measures that would raise revenues to pay jurors their regular salary during the proceedings. Why not though put the burden on the defendant and give him the option of choosing to pay the regular salary of all 12 jurors. If it was important enough I'm sure the money would be raised. Sure it would add up to thousands in extra legal fees but at the very least the defendant should have the choice of paying the salary of potential jurors for his case. It always seems like the prosecution benefits more from easily tricked jurors, rather than the defense. Shouldn't the advantage be fielded by the defense, e.g. the burden is on the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Matt_SERE]

I'm guessing none of us would support measures that would raise revenues to pay jurors their regular salary during the proceedings. Why not though put the burden on the defendant and give him the option of choosing to pay the regular salary of all 12 jurors. If it was important enough I'm sure the money would be raised. Sure it would add up to thousands in extra legal fees but at the very least the defendant should have the choice of paying the salary of potential jurors for his case. It always seems like the prosecution benefits more from easily tricked jurors, rather than the defense. Shouldn't the advantage be fielded by the defense, e.g. the burden is on the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Corruption would eventually bring full time, professional, jurors. Then that could lead to jurors with a cause.

 

[DarrenL]

Another issue was that the trial was expected to last 6 weeks. So you get retirees, housewives with nothing better to do and students (it was Summer time) for a jury. No way I could afford to be missing from my work for 6 weeks!

This happens with grand jury duty as well. I was summoned for grand jury back in 1998 (in MA, dismissed) it was three months, 4 days a week, all day. Half of the proceedings would have been in Lowell, where I would have been required to go to Boston, then get bused to Lowell, then bused back to Boston, then go home. (BTW, I lived in Westford at the time). So basically, had I not got dismissed, I would have lost my co-op job. I would not have starved or gone homeless, but think of someone supporting their family saying "I can come in one day a week for the next three months"

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Corruption would eventually bring full time, professional, jurors.

A relative of mine believes colleges should offer a major in "jury" for just this reason.

Then that could lead to jurors with a cause.

Like judges.

 

[Lcstyle]

Corruption would eventually bring full time, professional, jurors. Then that could lead to jurors with a cause.

it would still be a random selection process, the way it is currently. Counsel on both sides would still be able to screen potential jurors as they currently do. The Jury Duty Card would state if this particular trial would cover their full salary up front with an estimate of time on how long the trial would last. If I received one of these cards, I might be more inclined to actually serve as they are being up front and honest about the whole thing. As previously mentioned by someone else in this thread, doing away with the money issue could in some instances resolve the issue of good jurors not sticking around due to financial hardship or finding other excuses to not serve.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather decent hard working people serve on my jury. The question is, can those decent hard working people afford to be gone from their jobs and family for what could be multiple weeks without pay?

 

[MisterHappy]

I'm guessing none of us would support measures that would raise revenues to pay jurors their regular salary during the proceedings. Why not though put the burden on the defendant and give him the option of choosing to pay the regular salary of all 12 jurors. If it was important enough I'm sure the money would be raised. Sure it would add up to thousands in extra legal fees but at the very least the defendant should have the choice of paying the salary of potential jurors for his case. It always seems like the prosecution benefits more from easily tricked jurors, rather than the defense. Shouldn't the advantage be fielded by the defense, e.g. the burden is on the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".

For the same reason that it's wrong to have a fee to contest a traffic ticket (whether you win or lose), though it's the law.
For the same reason that it's wrong to have to pay a "room and board fee" while a guest at the Graybar Hotel
For the same reason that you are entitled to an adequate defense at the State's expense.

Because the power to tax is the power to destroy. If you take a person to trial, they have to: pay for their lawyer; lose income from lost work even if not tossed into the clink prior to trial; if tossed into the clink, come up with bail; possibly lose their job, because they were arrested; Have to keep up with all their regular expenses and costs, during this time.

And.....they're not even convicted at this point!

Add the "option" of paying for people to sit on your jury, at their normal salary..... OK....a five-day trial, each person on the jury makes $200 a day. 12 jurors and four alternates, that's $2400/day. Over $12,000. With all the above costs, who could afford that? If I'm a bank, and you come to me for a loan.....hell no! You're going to jail, and i'll have to take you to court to get the $ back.

 

[Lcstyle]

For the same reason that you are entitled to an adequate defense at the State's expense.

That's hilarious

Add the "option" of paying for people to sit on your jury, at their normal salary..... OK....a five-day trial, each person on the jury makes $200 a day. 12 jurors and four alternates, that's $2400/day. Over $12,000. With all the above costs, who could afford that? If I'm a bank, and you come to me for a loan.....hell no! You're going to jail, and i'll have to take you to court to get the $ back.

Who could afford it is irrelevant. The point is they should be allowed to pay if they can.
And if they are declared NOT GUILTY or Acquitted of all charges, the state should have to reimburse them for all fees related to their defense.

Irrespective of the fact that I do believe that bad laws are the real problem here, I think what I've outlined above might put a damper on witch hunts like the one this thread is about.

 

[AHM]

... the judge asks me if I could "give the benefit of the doubt to a contractor" and I hesitated and replied that I wasn't sure. Dismissed! ...

Raises the parting shot, "I know that criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil cases settled upon the preponderance of the evidence, but what the heck kind of a trial requires 'the benefit of the doubt' - does this case involve canon law or something?".

Not that I would have thought of that in time...