Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Just a quick update for those that were or have loved ones that were arrested in one of Florida's infamous sting operations. During the first week of June a judge in Manatee County dismissed two cases based on entrapment as a matter of law. Both men were arrested in Operation Green Shepherd back in September of 2012. These two cases are the only two from that sting where the defense attorneys filed motions to dismiss based on entrapment so it's pretty significant they were both successful. The first one is State v Jothilingam:
http://tinyurl.com/mpm3ddu
The other is State v Maniscalco:
http://tinyurl.com/m2jcdza
The first link in each post leads to a zip file containing the motions and the judge's written decision for that case. As of this time the State is appealing the decision in Jothilingam but has not filed an appeal in Maniscalco
http://tinyurl.com/mpm3ddu
The other is State v Maniscalco:
http://tinyurl.com/m2jcdza
The first link in each post leads to a zip file containing the motions and the judge's written decision for that case. As of this time the State is appealing the decision in Jothilingam but has not filed an appeal in Maniscalco
Why Craigslist's 'Casual Encounters' Is A Bad Spot To Catch Predators
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/06/17/why-craigslist-casual-encounters-is-a-bad-spot-to-catch-predators/
Through the years I have spoken with a few jurors who sat in on trials involving sex offenses. Not only do they allow emotion to overwhelm their common sense, especially if a child victim is involved, but most of the jurors told me something even more troubling. Several of them hinted that one reason they convicted the defendant was because they were afraid of acquitting and setting free a POSSIBLE sex offender. Never mind the evidence in the case; they were reluctant to take the chance of a pervert, predator or whatever going free. When they mentioned that fact, I was speechless.
Some jury system we have in this country. That is why a person needs to think long and hard before going to trial in a sex offense case.
rewdiazepam
I'm surely happy for the guy that was acquitted, but acquittals in jury trials involving children as victims are rare. I have been out of prison for 13 years and I closely follow all these cases. I cannot remember but a couple of acquittals in a trial involving an underage person in that period of time.
Prosecutors can be corrupt, but they are not stupid in that they know how to win a conviction in these cases. In fact, they use a smilar
The plan they use is this: Have the child victim looking like a young princess when they testify. This inclues ribbons in their hair and very nice clothing. The child then cries a lot—bawls and squalls is more like it---when testifying about the alleged incident. The sympathy factor alone is difficult to overcome for the jury.
Then they coach the child—Oh, do they ever coach. The child, if the defendant is innocent, will undoubtedly become mixed up in her story, but not to worry. All she has to do is keep saying repetitive phrases such as, “I was scared,” and the jury will give her unlimited latitude to basically lie. The defense attorney is reluctant to press the child too hard because that will just cause her to cry harder and make the jury even more sympathetic, not to mention that it will cause them to hate both the defendant’s lawyer and the defendant for making her cry.
These trials, especially in children, follow a similar pattern in that they are based on emotion rather than the facts of the case.
If a child can keep her story straight and have even a fraction of credibility, the defendant is toast.
In these trials, there is really no way a defendant can be acquitted unless he has a jury that can see the facts for what they are.
The only defendants that go to trial are: 1) those that are so arrogant that they think they can beat the charges, or 2) those whose sense of right and wrong is so powerful that they just cannot bring themselves to take a guilty plea when they are innocent. It is no wonder that most defense attorneys advise defendants, many times innocent defendants, to take a plea.
Sad that facts do not matter, but that is the way the game—and trust me, it is only a game-- is played.
Rewdiazepam
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13GH9fTymlqyhA3ZOwlGf7Dx7nNTjGH6NoovcTikUAi4/edit?usp=sharing
On another note - my son told me the other night that people in FL that are arrested in a sting of the intent to have sex with a minor are not required to wear a GPS monitor while on probation. All other sex offenders (regardless of crime) are required to wear it for the duration of probation. Does anyone know if this is true and perhaps why this exception was made? I am curious because it seems weird to me? I actually think many of these folks should not have to wear it - on a case to case basis.
From looking at the offenses that qualify for GPS, it looks like at some point they all involved contact with an actual victim. The Lewd/Lascivious offenses that don't require contact aren't included. I know CP is a non-contact offense but I'm guessing the State assumes since a child was victimized in order to produce CP it qualifies.