- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
A jury decided they were not guilty. A judge sentenced them to life in prison anyway
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:33 pm
In 2001, Richardson and Claiborne went to trial. A jury found them not guilty of officer Gibson’s murder, but guilty of selling crack.
But in an unusual move, District Judge Robert E. Payne sentenced Richardson and Claiborne to life in prison using “acquitted conduct sentencing,” a legal mechanism approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. In that case, known as Watts, the court ruled that a jury’s acquittal does not prevent a judge from using the conduct the defendant was acquitted of against them when sentencing them for another charge.
“The Court’s decision to sentence Terrence and Ferrone to life in prison despite being found not guilty robbed due process of its very meaning,” said Jarrett Adams, Richardson and Claiborne’s attorney and co-founder of Life After Justice. “The U.S. Supreme Court must do away with its ruling in U.S. v Watts, which gives a judge the discretion to make a jury’s finding meaningless, and prevent further miscarriages of justice from occurring like the one we see in this case.”
LINK /
But in an unusual move, District Judge Robert E. Payne sentenced Richardson and Claiborne to life in prison using “acquitted conduct sentencing,” a legal mechanism approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. In that case, known as Watts, the court ruled that a jury’s acquittal does not prevent a judge from using the conduct the defendant was acquitted of against them when sentencing them for another charge.
“The Court’s decision to sentence Terrence and Ferrone to life in prison despite being found not guilty robbed due process of its very meaning,” said Jarrett Adams, Richardson and Claiborne’s attorney and co-founder of Life After Justice. “The U.S. Supreme Court must do away with its ruling in U.S. v Watts, which gives a judge the discretion to make a jury’s finding meaningless, and prevent further miscarriages of justice from occurring like the one we see in this case.”
LINK /
27
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:38 pm to Eurocat
That doesn't seem right.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:41 pm to Eurocat
Alright.
What is the real story?
What is the real story?
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:41 pm to Eurocat
Sounds just like our fricked up legal system
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:44 pm to Eurocat
They’re guilty of something, lock em up
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:44 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Richardson and Claiborne insisted they had nothing to do with Gibson’s death. But their attorneys at the time told them that they could be sentenced to death if they went to trial and lost. Richardson and Claiborne were poor Black men accused of killing a white police officer in the South. Out of fear for their lives, they took guilty pleas.
“He said if you go to trial and you mess around and you lose, you could get the death penalty,” Richardson told local news.
Richardson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years in state prison with five years suspended. Claiborne pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, as an accessory to Richardson’s crime. The county attorney at the time, David Chappell, said he made those plea bargains with Richardson and Claiborne because the case was too compromised: One of the first officers to arrive on the scene was Waverly Police Chief Warren Sturrup, who picked up Gibson’s gun with his bare hands and, in doing so, tainted any fingerprints that may have been on the gun.
Gibson’s family was outraged by what they saw as a lenient sentence for Richardson and Claiborne, who, in their view, had pleaded guilty to being involved in Gibson’s death. Following public outcry, federal prosecutors brought additional charges against the pair accusing them of selling crack cocaine and murdering a police officer during a drug deal gone wrong.
In 2001, Richardson and Claiborne went to trial. A jury found them not guilty of officer Gibson’s murder, but guilty of selling crack.
Land of the free
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:45 pm to Eurocat
quote:
The Appeal is a nonprofit news organization that envisions a world in which systems of support and care, not punishment, create public safety.
The Appeal’s journalism exposes the harms of a criminal legal system entrenched in centuries of systemic racism. We equip people with the information necessary to make change, and we elevate solutions that emerge from the communities most affected by policing, jails, and prisons in the U.S.
This is that website's About Us section.
I feel reasonably confident that they're leaving out some important information about this story.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:45 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Robert E
That’s problematic.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:46 pm to Eurocat
Sounds like the judge in the Trump indictments.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:52 pm to Eurocat
Well our legal system is a fricking joke. Have you seen who goes to law school these days. A pothead, C student can become a Supreme Court justice, law is not a profession.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:57 pm to Eurocat
This is not the same as Trump's trials. Nice try though.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 4:25 pm to Eurocat
So the judge is saying frick the jury’s verdict then.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 4:41 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Eurocat
Now do Derek Chauvin
Posted on 11/28/23 at 5:20 pm to Eurocat
1996 Watts case, USSC ruled 7-2, that judges could do this.
Ginsburg, Beyer, Souter, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Rehnquist in agreement. You don't find those names together that often.
In a 7-2 per curiam opinion, the Court held that a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a defendant's conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence
Ginsburg, Beyer, Souter, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Rehnquist in agreement. You don't find those names together that often.
In a 7-2 per curiam opinion, the Court held that a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a defendant's conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence
Posted on 11/28/23 at 5:22 pm to Eurocat
Were they Trump supporters?
Posted on 11/28/23 at 5:41 pm to Eurocat
Our legal system is absolutely bonkers sometimes.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 6:02 pm to Eurocat
Posted on 11/28/23 at 6:23 pm to Eurocat
Sounds fishy to me
Posted on 11/28/23 at 6:41 pm to Eurocat
quote:
A jury decided they were not guilty
quote:
guilty of selling crack
quote:
guilty
Posted on 11/28/23 at 7:03 pm to Eurocat
Yep, we had a SCOTUS then that used "feelings" or felt the US Constitution should "move forward".
What we have now is 5 - 6 "originalist" judges at any given time.
What we have now is 5 - 6 "originalist" judges at any given time.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News