Kinda Blue

History

Member for
3 years 26 weeks

Karma

Current value
2

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
9 hours 29 min ago Right about "Frisco"

Well, he's right about "Frisco". People out here in the Bay Area hate that phrase.



Very rarely hear the term Cali, too.
3 days 9 hours ago Not quite

I think Kiffin was hired before Hayden. Kiffin was hired by Mike Garrett.
4 weeks 1 hour ago Having worked as a prosecutor

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.
12 weeks 6 days ago Well,

Well, Tebow is considered by many to be one of the better college quarterbacks in history because of the complete skillset he brought to the game at the college level.  Maybe that skillset doesn't translate to the NFL but it doesn't change how effective the skillset is in the college game.  So, yes, I consider Denard a great college QB precisely because his running ability negates the harmful impact of his interceptions and his lower his completion percentage.  If he was only a thrower, I'd agree he is not great.  But his total output using all of his skills makes him a great college QB.
23 weeks 2 days ago posted from iPhone
24 weeks 4 days ago Any chance Va Tech still gets a BCS spot?

If so, are we out of luck?  They were ranked number 5 before playing Clemson.  At least it is a heavy beatdown.
26 weeks 2 days ago Get Tate

Get Tate to transfer from San Jose State if sitting out this year will allow him start right away. Just kidding...sort of.
32 weeks 5 days ago Dick Vermeil

After nearly 20 years off.
41 weeks 1 day ago Seems like an ADA violation

Seems like a potential violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Letting the kid play beyond the age 19 would seem like a reasonable accomodation for what can reasonably be described as slower rate of development than a teenager without downs.
47 weeks 2 days ago posted from iPhone
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.