I feel like I am just about to explode! re: trial

[Jen500]

:grouphug:

[Gwenhwyfar]

ok why are so many people saying "take the deal"?

 

if he didn't do it - then he didn't do it. why should he go and LIE and say that he did something that he didn't do? that's not right, not in any sense. i can't imagine announcing to the world that i committed a crime when i didn't...

 

if for some bizarre reason they do convict him (and i just can't imagine it being done solely on one person's word) ...first offence - he'd prolly get some community service hours? (not a big deal - and it sounds like you can appeal things anyway?).....it's young offenders, so that stuff goes away when you turn 18 --- at least i assume it does in the states too? i was charged under the young offenders act several times as a teenager and when i have a criminal background check done now as an adult - it's totally clean.

[Cricket]

Juvenile court....judge only. We do wish it was a jury trial. There are so many wishy-washy details in the case that I really, really don't think a jury could convict him.

 

Isn't it everyone's right to demand a jury trial? Is it different because it is juvenile court? I think you are right. A jury would never convict him.

[Teachin'Mine]

I really want to urge you to talk to your attorney about the difference between accepting a guilty plea to a lesser charge and going to trial. Ask your attorney for the brutal truth. Does your attorney believe you have a good chance at trial?

While you can have things sealed after 2 years, a felony offense will follow you. You can not vote with a felony offense. You can not own a fire arm. Most employers will ask point blank have you had a felony offense. Will it show up on background checks? If a law enforcement officer can see it, will a potential employer be able to see it. Will you want your son to have to explain down the road to a potential employer when asked have you ever been convicted of a felony that it was a case of mistaken identity at 16.

I am really urging you to talk to your attorney and ask for brutal honesty. What has your attorney advised? I would not want my child to take the fall for something they did not do, but I also wouldn't ask my child to take such a chance on a felony conviction.

 

:iagree: Your attorney knows how your son presents and he also knows the judge. Trust his advice. What does your son want to do - go to trial or accept the plea? Ask him.

[Mejane]

I have a son like yours. I can't even let my mind go where you are. I so hope everything works out for him! :grouphug:

[Mom0012]

ok why are so many people saying "take the deal"?

 

if he didn't do it - then he didn't do it. why should he go and LIE and say that he did something that he didn't do? that's not right, not in any sense. i can't imagine announcing to the world that i committed a crime when i didn't...

 

if for some bizarre reason they do convict him (and i just can't imagine it being done solely on one person's word) ...first offence - he'd prolly get some community service hours? (not a big deal - and it sounds like you can appeal things anyway?).....it's young offenders, so that stuff goes away when you turn 18 --- at least i assume it does in the states too? i was charged under the young offenders act several times as a teenager and when i have a criminal background check done now as an adult - it's totally clean.

 

Probably because when I hear the fear from the OP, and we are talking felony vs. misdemeanor, I am thinking jail time vs. no jail time. Avoiding jail time for my son would be worth it to me at all costs. Not to mention that even though records are sealed, a felony will still follow him in some ways. Also, we do not have a just system and the fact that her son is innocent may become totally irrelevant when he gets to court.

 

But, I don't actually know what the difference in sentencing would mean for her son. Maybe she has said somewhere, but I am making some assumptions. I guess my other question to you would be were the charges you had as a teen felonies? The OP has said the police will still know he "committed a felony" and that he will not be able to own a firearm.

 

Lisa

Edited November 13, 2010 by LisaTheresa

[sparrow]

:grouphug: I really just can't imagine what you're going through. My thoughts are with your family.

[BeckyFL]

My heart just goes out to you! It makes you wonder what kind of justice system we have. It's just surreal that anything like this could even happen. Dh and I prayed the justice will prevail and we will continue. :grouphug:

[Dayle in Guatemala]

:grouphug:I can't even imagine what you're going through.:grouphug:

[LittleIzumi]

You'd think that with plenty of reasonable doubt this should never even have gone to trial :confused:

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[Vida Winter]

My heart is aching for you. What a horrible situation. Can he take a lie detector test? That in itself would be terrible but if allowed it may clear things up. It sounds like the accused has almost no rights in the juvenile court. I will be praying. :grouphug:

[Sparkle]

Reading your story makes me feel sick. I wish all us "mama bears" could be in the court room with you and tell that judge he'd better not mess with one of us :glare: Praying for truth and justice to win out :grouphug:

[Tap]

ok why are so many people saying "take the deal"?

 

if he didn't do it - then he didn't do it. why should he go and LIE and say that he did something that he didn't do? that's not right, not in any sense. i can't imagine announcing to the world that i committed a crime when i didn't...

 

if for some bizarre reason they do convict him (and i just can't imagine it being done solely on one person's word) ...first offence - he'd prolly get some community service hours? (not a big deal - and it sounds like you can appeal things anyway?).....it's young offenders, so that stuff goes away when you turn 18 --- at least i assume it does in the states too? i was charged under the young offenders act several times as a teenager and when i have a criminal background check done now as an adult - it's totally clean.

 

He will likely get 5 days in jail/3 with good behavior and Community service (he already does a lot so that isn't a problem).

 

The big problem is that it is a felony conviction and those don't totally go away when you are an adult. He will never be able to be around or use a firearm again and loose the right to vote. The record is sealed to the public but not law enforcement or government. If you have a misdemeanor charge, it can't be used against you in future lawsuits a felony can (even a 'sealed' felony).

 

So, while the 'juvenile records are sealed' sounds nice and pretty....there are still huge permanent consequences.

[Tap]

My heart is aching for you. What a horrible situation. Can he take a lie detector test? That in itself would be terrible but if allowed it may clear things up. It sounds like the accused has almost no rights in the juvenile court. I will be praying. :grouphug:

 

Not admissible in court. We did have him take one and he passed. We gave it to the other attorney.

[Tammyla]

:grouphug:I do hope it works out for him.

[Renee in NC]

He will likely get 5 days in jail/3 with good behavior and Community service (he already does a lot so that isn't a problem).

 

The big problem is that it is a felony conviction and those don't totally go away when you are an adult. He will never be able to be around or use a firearm again and loose the right to vote. The record is sealed to the public but not law enforcement or government. If you have a misdemeanor charge, it can't be used against you in future lawsuits a felony can (even a 'sealed' felony).

 

So, while the 'juvenile records are sealed' sounds nice and pretty....there are still huge permanent consequences.

 

What about his friend that was arrested for the same crime?

[RoughCollie]

He will likely get 5 days in jail/3 with good behavior

 

Aside from all the other major problems, jail is not a pretty place. Bad things happen, including in juvenile detention facilities.

 

There is no way I would go to jail or let one of my loved ones do so, if I could possibly avoid it.

 

Are there protections in place to protect your son if he has to spend time in jail? Are those protections firmly and always utilized?

 

The thought of your son going to jail horrifies me.

[Tap]

What about his friend that was arrested for the same crime?

 

His friend was never arrested. The witness says she heard one person call the other 'Nathan'.

 

Ds has a friend Nathaniel and the other is Ryan. They did a photo lineup with Nathaniel and she couldn't pick him out.

 

He is clear for now, but I wonder if my son is convicted, if they will try to go after Nathaniel.

 

 

Nathaniel has never gone by the name Nathan, but obviously it is close enough that that won't matter too much.

[JenC3]

This is the kind of thing that completely infuriates and terrifies me! Praying for you and feeling very sickened by our legal system:(

[Tap]

Aside from all the other major problems, jail is not a pretty place. Bad things happen, including in juvenile detention facilities.

 

There is no way I would go to jail or let one of my loved ones do so, if I could possibly avoid it.

 

Are there protections in place to protect your son if he has to spend time in jail? Are those protections firmly and always utilized?

 

The thought of your son going to jail horrifies me.

 

I agree. I am trying to not think too much about that. I am going to talk to the attorney Monday (Readiness Hearing) and ask him about the conditions and safety there. One thing we are seriously relying on is that we can have character witnesses at the sentencing. We can provide great character witnesses for ds, so I am holding out hope that maybe the judge will grant him some grace and grant him zero days in jail. That with the fact that he has never been in trouble, is an honor student, involved with sports, dual enrolled in a college/high school, when in high school was in a "Math, Science, Technology Magnet" and is a very, very devote and active Christian (helps teach Sunday School, attends regular service, youth service, volunteers to help at events and Men's Bible Study).....we are hoping the judge will see that he isn't a typical teenager running amok.

[RoughCollie]

They did a photo lineup with Nathaniel and she couldn't pick him out.

 

Yet they didn't bother with a photo or other kind of lineup for your son before they arrested him? That pisses me off big time.

[RoughCollie]

One thing we are seriously relying on is that we can have character witnesses at the sentencing.

 

Ask your attorney if you can have character witnesses at the trial, if you all decide to go that route. The wits would be speaking to the question of your son's reputation for honesty. That is admissible in some states.

[Tap]

Yet they didn't bother with a photo or other kind of lineup for your son before they arrested him? That pisses me off big time.

 

Nope....just a kid walking down the street.

[mcconnellboys]

Then any person in any neighborhood could do such a thing to any child at any time???? That's just plain bizarro! Did y'all have drug testing done on your son to show that he has no drugs in his system???? And, again, did they search the house to see that the medication was not in your home the very next day?

 

This is all just beyond incredible to me.....

 

This woman is saying that she saw someone come into her home in the middle of the night and steal from her - but she waited until the next day to call police - then she went outside and accused the first person she saw? What the heck????

 

This just sounds like the plot of a very bad B movie.....

[RoughCollie]

This just sounds like the plot of a very bad B movie.....

 

It sure does. Unfortunately, in a very small percentage of cases, the innocent get nabbed as a result of poor (or no) investigation by the police. That is compounded by prosecutors who are more interested in processing cases or in having their conviction rates increase than they are in justice.

 

Also, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. That a hypothetical defendant does not have drugs in his system, on his person, in his vehicle, or in his home does not prove that he never had possession of the drugs in question. For example, a hypothetical defendant could have given them to someone else, or he could have flushed the drugs and put the bottle down a sewer grate, or he could have buried them in the flower bed.

 

That is one problem with this case. The boy cannot prove he was not in the neighbor's house that night. He was at home all night, but when the crime occurred he and everyone else in his household was asleep.

 

This is the reason our legal system is set up so that the government has to prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not an infallible system -- and I don't think that an infallible system can exist.

 

An example of elements that have to be proven follows. Let's say a guy is charged with burglary of a dwelling place in the night time. The elements are that he (1) broke, (2) entered, (3) a dwelling place, (4) in the night time, (5) with the intent to commit a felony therein. The government has to prove all 5 elements beyond a reasonable doubt before a defendant can be convicted of committing that crime.

 

I've heard of a case in which the guy was convicted of that and his conviction was reversed on appeal because there was insufficient evidence to show that the guy "broke" in, and thus the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of all elements of the crime charged.

 

Now whether a defendant broke in depends on that state's law -- often on how the appellate courts have decided to define it. Sometimes an unlocked door means a breaking in cannot take place. Sometimes breaching the threshold without permission means a breaking in took place. Sometimes the case law or statute is changed and what is true now will not be true in the future. Sometimes appellate courts find a reason to uphold a sentence no matter what.

Edited November 13, 2010 by RoughCollie

[SnowWhite]

I would not risk a guilty verdict. I would ask if he can plead no contest to a lesser charge. That is not like admitting guilt to something he did not do.

[Tap]

Then any person in any neighborhood could do such a thing to any child at any time???? That's just plain bizarro! Did y'all have drug testing done on your son to show that he has no drugs in his system???? And, again, did they search the house to see that the medication was not in your home the very next day?

 

This is all just beyond incredible to me.....

 

This woman is saying that she saw someone come into her home in the middle of the night and steal from her - but she waited until the next day to call police - then she went outside and accused the first person she saw? What the heck????

 

This just sounds like the plot of a very bad B movie.....

 

Yes, we had two drug tests ran on ds to possibly use at sentencing in case he is convicted. Otherwise, they are not admissible due to the fact that 'just because someone stole the drugs, doesn't mean they wanted to take them.'

 

Yep, that is pretty much what happened. Except it was 2 days later that she ID him.

[greensummervillian]

I am absolutely sick to my stomach for you. I'm sorry you are having to go through all this.

[FO4UR]

ok why are so many people saying "take the deal"?

 

if he didn't do it - then he didn't do it. why should he go and LIE and say that he did something that he didn't do? that's not right, not in any sense. i can't imagine announcing to the world that i committed a crime when i didn't...

 

if for some bizarre reason they do convict him (and i just can't imagine it being done solely on one person's word) ...first offence - he'd prolly get some community service hours? (not a big deal - and it sounds like you can appeal things anyway?).....it's young offenders, so that stuff goes away when you turn 18 --- at least i assume it does in the states too? i was charged under the young offenders act several times as a teenager and when i have a criminal background check done now as an adult - it's totally clean.

 

I've seen someone wrongfully accused, years stolen from his life and decades later the record still hangs over his head...it was one judge who decided this fate. He didn't do it...it didn't matter. The guy who really did it admits to it now that the time has been served...:glare:

 

 

I wouldn't want to chance my son spending time in jail.

[RoughCollie]

I've seen someone wrongfully accused, years stolen from his life and decades later the record still hangs over his head...it was one judge who decided this fate. He didn't do it...it didn't matter. The guy who really did it admits to it now that the time has been served...:glare:

 

To me that is a great reason to take the deal. The risk is too high of conviction and the consequences too dire for me to let one of my kids go to trial in a case like this. The conviction risk could be even higher with a bench trial, instead of a jury trial.

 

If a person pleads not guilty in a court of law, they are not saying they are factually innocent. They are merely making the government prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

If a person pleads guilty, they are waiving that right.

 

An acquittal after a trial does not mean the defendant is factually innocent. It merely means that the government could not prove all elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the defendant is factually guilty or factually innocent has nothing to do with it.

 

A conviction does not mean the defendant is factually guilty, either. Usually they are and there is ample definitive evidence of it -- but it does happen in a tiny percentage of cases that a tried and convicted defendant is factually innocent.

Edited November 13, 2010 by RoughCollie

[Trish]

Wouldn't there be fingerprints in her house? (do to whomever broke it?) Did she say the suspect was wearing gloves? (seems unlikely to me)

[TravelingChris]

It does sound like a nightmare. I am praying for a good outcome. I have also used your son's case as one of my examples why just winning as a prosecutor is not what my dd should strive for since prosecuting the wrong person is very, very wrong.

[Tap]

Wouldn't there be fingerprints in her house? (do to whomever broke it?) Did she say the suspect was wearing gloves? (seems unlikely to me)

 

No gloves mentioned as far as we know. The suspects, got in the house (there is no sign of a break-in) assumably through a door. The medications stolen, were in a cupboard. They found medications dropped into a drawer below the cupboard, so they assume the suspects were dropping them into the drawer as they rifled through the cupboard.

 

When she came into the room, one suspect jumped over a counter, and ran out a sliding glass door. The other suspect (the one ds is accused of being) stood and said "don't talk to me" and told the dog to be quiet by name (ds doesn't know the dogs name). Then left through the garage door.

 

The police didn't bother to collect finger prints. There were multiple surfaces that could have yielded prints; door knobs, prescription vials, counter top, sliding glass door. No one even tried. :(

[Mejane]

 

The police didn't bother to collect finger prints. There were multiple surfaces that could have yielded prints; door knobs, prescription vials, counter top, sliding glass door. No one even tried. :(

 

 

Sounds like the police botched this case. I hope your son's attorney uses that in his defense.

[swellmomma]

The whole thing you guys are going through is insane. We are facing a messed up isse here of my ds being accused of something by 1 group of people and a different group saying he is innocent of the crime. I believe him and the group saying he is innocent, but that has not stopped the police from coming after him. 2 things though are protecting my son, 1 being one of his accusers was heard laughing several days later that he did the crime to frame ds, though the police say that is only a rumor and will not check into it. and 2 I told them if they come near my son without proof they would have a huge battle on their hands. So far they have not charged him, but I did get a call this week from a officer saying they were ready to (which is when I told the officer point #2, they have not contacted us since).

 

I am so sorry you are going through this with your son. I think when this is all said and done I would be suing the woman for defamation of character, and slander/libel as well as for undue suffering as a result of all of this.

 

When we had that psycho after my family, I had to do a photo lineup and when I could not say 100% certainty that the guy who was doing it to us was one of those guys(I was having trouble deciding between 2) they could not bring the guy in even for questioning let alone charges. He smashed out all my windows and was seen watching my family daily for a week after but that line up prevented him from ever being charged. I am shocked that your son is being accused like this with nothing more than someone pointing to him on the street.

[LisaKinVA]

The #1 question in my mind, is if 3 kids broke into the house (or were in the house without permission) in the middle of the night -- why the heck did the woman wait until morning to report it?

 

There is only one reason why *I* can imagine, and it is: I know the kids, and didn't think they had really done anything, didn't want them to get into trouble. Then LATER I realized something had been stolen, and since it wasn't my house, knew I had to report it to save my arse. Picked a kid, thinking he would probably be cleared, but at least *I* had done my part (as far as my friends were concerned).

 

If I were staying in someone's home, and 3 kids were there... I'd be on the phone immediately, if not sooner. I don't care if they were scared off. The fact that they were there is enough for me.

 

Tap, praying it all goes well today!