Josh Furman found not guilty on all three counts.
Here's a helpful link: http://mgoblog.com/content/michigan-depth-chart-class-0
...but then who is the cat burglar?
He ought to be fully reinstated, with nothing more than a private conversation with Hoke about what to do in those kinds of circumstances and some step-running.
Players have to realize that at a fishbowl like UM, there are always going to be assholes in bars and clubs and private houses looking to make a name for themselves by trying to get into it with an athlete. It's pretty much a no-win proposition for the athlete, unfortunately, but they have to be able to walk away from the asshole comment by the asshole.
Someone else might call it exercising restraint.
Though the site has been working slowly the last few days, with a lot of 503 errors and suc h. I wonder if there are upgrades being done. It's not traffic, for sure.
on the blog is loosely correlated with overall blog hits, so I'd venture to guess the Levenberry announcement 503's/504's were traffic-related.
The rest of the time, though, we're in deep off-season.
April 26th, 2012 at 11:02 PM ^
Deep off-season is the best time of year around here.
In defense of the prosecutor, in a criminal district court bench trial the parties almost always know the result before the trial begins. Alot of times it is the best way to get rid of a case without the backlash of dismissing it. EIther party is capable of demanding a jury trial if they don't want the bench trial. I would bet money that that all parties knew this result prior to the trial beginning and this way the prosecutor doesn't appear to be favoring Michigan athletes by dismissing a case. It doesn't make sense, but is routinely done.
I really do not understand prosecutors. A friend of mine was recently charged with a laughably ridiculous assault and the prosecutor was absolutely refusing to accept any kind of a meaningful plea deal. Then, it was discovered by the defense atty that the "victim" was batshit crazy (his victim impact statement would make Charles Manson sound like a sane and well-balanced individual) and therefore he was going to demand a trial and call this buffoon to the stand. Prosecutor balked.
I was personally charged with drunk driving despite never having started the vehicle, nor moving it. Nonetheless, the prosecutors pressed on with the charges until I got an attorney and put up a fight (charges were dismissed, but I was out $1,500).
Now Furman. As I said, I do not understand these people. They have no common sense. The idea of justice is foreign to them. It almost seems like they are trying to keep their colleagues (defense attorneys) working. In the three instances above, I would not be surprised if close to $6,000 total was spent on defense atty fees. It is ridiculous. They drag people's names through the mud for no good reason. There needs to be some sort of consequence (besides say the obvious, like posting the address of their summer home throughout Craigslist chat forums). Personally, I think the prosecutor's office should be forced to pay the attorney fees for any individuals against whom either charges are dropped or who are found innocent. That might slow these assholes down a bit.
The prosecutor is still saying he did it, the witnesses backed off what they said earlier, etc. Pretty classless way to take a loss. I no longer think the prosecutor deserves the benefit of the doubt, she just seems mean and vindictive.
Maybe the prosecutor really believes he is guilty, but generally there are numerous pretrial and settlement conferences prior to the trial, and judges tend to let you know what they think of your case. They can make it very tough on you. I don't know why on earth you would take a bench trial if the judge gave you an indication that it wasn't going to end well for you unless you just wanted to be done with the case in the quickest manner possible. That being said, maybe the judge didn't tip the parties off as to which way he was leaning. Bench Trials aren't very common things in very adversely contested cases. I bet the Pros office new they were screwed way prior to the result. Like I said, this is speculation but in most circumstances defense attorneys wouldn't take a bench trial unless they knew they would win.
Good to hear. It's just too bad the kid's name was attached to this kind of thing. Welcome back Josh
To those attending the home opener and his name is announced, if you feel moved, please make sure he feels welcomed to the team and to its supporting fans.
He probably won't be listed as a starter, so he won't be announced. I'm sure he'll feel all the love he needs just by running out of the tunnel and touching the banner.
YES.
and you'll be right, but I very much doubt that if just one essential fact were changed in this case, with all other facts being exactly the same, that the charges would have been pursued. Namely, if instead of the alleged assailant being a large African-American athlete with dreadlocks and tattoos, the alleged assailant was a blond, blue-eyed B School student from Bloomfield Hills or Grosse Pointe, the whole thing would have never seen the criminal justice system, because the prosecutor would have assumed that John Huntington McRichguy III would never assault a nice girl like that.
From my understanding, it tends to be the race of the VICTIM that is most strongly correlated with decisions to prosecute, rather than the race of the accused. People are more likely to be prosecuted if the victim is white (and the disparity increases as the severity of the crime increases). I don't care to speculate as to the reasons. Just thought it was relevant and interesting.
I've seen studies in which decisions to seek the death penalty were apparently mostly* influenced by the race of the victim, as you say, but also influenced by the race of the defendant. A disproportionate amount of the victims in death penalty cases (per what I've seen) were white, and a (less) disproportionate amount of the defendants in those cases were black.
*"Mostly" relative to the races of the various actors in the situation. There was no account for the underlying facts of the cases.
5, 4, 3, 2, ......
I'm sure these last few months have been very stressful on him.
Having worked as a prosecutor, I disagree with a lot of what has been said in this thread about the DA's decision to take the case to trial. I do not see it as a waste of taxpayer resources.
First, I found that the prosecutor's office I worked in was extremely ethical, weighed the merits of each case as best they could, and was very willing to drop cases that were based scant evidence. True, there are cases where the prosecutor would rather lose at trial on less than slam-dunk evidence than accept a minimal plea---but those were frequently cases where the crime involved a gun (where they had minimum standards for plea bargaining such offenses) or the victim was a child.
I have seen many assault and battery cases dropped because the witnesses were not reliable. It appears that the witnesses in Furman's case changed their story and the prosecutor thought there was still a case for illegal entry and battery without their more favorable testimony (e.g, relying on the 911 call). My guess is that prosecutor considered their initial statements to be more reliable and supported by other evidence like the 911 call. Moreover, I have seen many such witnesses tell the prosecutor one thing immediately before trial only to change their story while giving testimony on the stand.
If prosecutors dropped every case where a man is alleged to have assaulted a woman and the woman withdrew her prior statement, very few domestic battery cases would ever get tried. Sometimes it really is better to let a jury (or in this case the judge) decide whether a crime has occurred.
It sounds like Furman was entitled to the acquittal and I am gald he got it. But I take no issue with the prosecutor's decision to let a finder of fact determine the outcome at trial.
If the DA dropped every case (or even most cases) where the alleged battery was considered slight or no big deal, then citizens would be equally up in arms when defendants who were allowed to skate on a prior battery charge go on commit a more heinous act in the future. As a policy matter, it is not very different than allowing an abusive husband to go unprosecuted for inflicting minor beatings on his spouse (where the wife recants her testimony) only to see the extent of his violence increase down the road.
Prosecuting smaller batteries--even where the witnesses recant--is not necessarily a waste of tax dollars. For example, Josh may think twice before going over to someone's home seeking conflict while he is upset. Likewise, some defendants will be found guilty despite a witness' efforts to recant and they may be deterred from committing a more serious crime in the future or be positioned for a more sever punishment if they do it again. Also, there is also a general deterrant effect that comes with knowing that even minor batteries will still subject a defendant to prosecution.
When I tried a case, I tended not to let the results of the trial change my view of whether the case should be tried. Rather, I had a duty to put the honest facts before the jury on behalf of the state--be they better or worse for my case--and let the jury weigh the merits of the facts. The facts are what they are. I couldn't change them. As long as I presented them ethically to the jury, I was comfortable with the results conviction or no conviction.
Not every crime is a rape or murder. But, that does not mean that it is not in the state's interest in prosecuting more minor offenses or that a trial on such charges is a waste of resources. Furman got his day in court. The state got its day in court. Furman prevailed. It's a perfectly good outcome for both.
Maybe the PA had issues with Mark Furman and this was as close to getting on TV
Whoever decided to prosecute should be fired. It was the kind of thing were, thirty years ago, the police would have given everyone the choice to calm down or be arrested, and simply told Furman to go home.