I wrote this almost a year ago in regards to Ricardo Juarez being sentenced as an adult. Back in March of 07 the D.A. had two choices to charge a 14 as an adult using prop 21. One is Murder the other would have been assault with a deadly weapon, they chose murder. Now since I already have a court document from our District Attorney Franklin in which he writes he gave stomper immunity for the murder than had him testify we know Juarez was not properly charged. Ok once the court came back with manslaughter and that is not a charge which allows the D.A. to convict Juarez as an adult. Manslaughter is a killing with out malice or intent thus eliminates gang enhancements. There is generally no enhancements added to life sentence charges since it is redundant in nature. All I am saying is that they lie cheat and do what they want. Please forgive my spelling and grammar, sometimes while posting back than I would be in a hurry to finish and should have been more polished.
I will forward the document I metioned regard stomper and immunity over the weekend.
An Old posting
Is the Sentencing in the Ricardo Juarez file legal?
I must pass on my condolences to the Linares an the lose of there sons life before I go on. I having two sons cannot even imagine the pain and sorrow felt by your family. This work how ever is so important since our children are simply being used by Law Enforcement as political pawns. Take for example the actions committed here by our courts and its personal act or are engaging in a Racketeering-Influenced
and as a Corrupt Organization against our youth and selected adults A.K.A, R.I.C.O.
If you notice all the witness's in this crime are youths and all have been separated from family to prevent further questioning as to what really transpired and if the Law was properly and evenly applied to all. Again I only have questions about the proposition 21 law and how it was applied but upon review of the Internet this law a long with gang enhancements is greatly miss applied in courts leading to numerous appeals which leads me to my next question. Where does Mr. R. Juarez's appeal process stand as we speak. To the Linares family and all family's effected by these possible corrupt actions by our courts and law enforcement, should we not error on the side that protects all children's rights? Should we not start to trust in our own discomfort and help each other protect our children from being used as nothing more than funding and job security? I was attending a regular class at the time the murder took place. An based on past days in which school was let out early or off not only me but people on the bus were a aware that there would be gatherings of youth from different sides of town and would possible be on state street that day. How hard was it for the police based on past actions to increase or at least strategically place there personal to help prevent anything from happening at all? That has been my main concern from the outset. Below are some very specific laws all concerning the charges and sentencing for Mr. Juarez. I fear that the above mentioned court personal and law enforcement have no fear and commit there crimes of civil rights violations, prosecutal and judicual misconduct in broad day light under the phony idea it represents justice. What if I am right,what than?
Regards
Larry Mendoza
05/29/09
January 16th,2009 story from the independent;
Since 2001, when 62 percent of California voters in favor of Proposition 21, 14-year-olds can be tried in adult court for some serious crimes, including murder and attempted murder. At the time of the DA’s decision, Juarez was the second youngest person in the state to be prosecuted in this manner.
Text of Proposition 21
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 602, the district attorney or other appropriate prosecuting officer may file an accusatory pleading against a minor 14 years of age or older in a court of criminal jurisdiction in any case in which any one or more of the following circumstances apply:
(A) The minor is alleged to have committed an offense which if committed by an adult would be punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.
602. Any (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), #italic#any person who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.
(b) Any person who is alleged, when he or she was 14 years of age or older, to have committed one of the following offenses shall be prosecuted under the general law in a court of criminal jurisdiction:
(1) Murder, as described in Section 187 of the Penal Code, if one of the circumstances enumerated in subdivision (a) of Section 190.2 of the Penal Code is alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor alleges that the minor personally killed the victim.
190.2 penal code
(a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of
murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of
the following special circumstances has been found under Section
190.4 to be true:
Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being withoutmalice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
So what happens
if the charge is not one that you can apply Proposition 21?
Read below and find out;
Rule 4.510. Reverse remand
(a) Minor prosecuted under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(b) or 707(d) and convicted of offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(b) or 707(d) (Penal Code, § 1170.17)
If the prosecuting attorney lawfully initiated the prosecution as a criminal case under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(b) or 707(d), and the minor is convicted of a criminal offense listed in those sections, the minor must be sentenced as an adult.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) Minor convicted of an offense not listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(b) or 707(d) (Penal Code, § 1170.17)
(1) If the prosecuting attorney lawfully initiated the prosecution as a criminal case and the minor is convicted of an offense not listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(b) or 707(d), but one that would have raised the presumption of unfitness under juvenile court law, the minor may move the court to conduct a postconviction fitness hearing.
(A) On the motion by the minor, the court must order the probation department to prepare a report as required in rule 5.768.
(B) The court may conduct a fitness hearing or remand the matter to the juvenile court for a determination of fitness.
(C) The minor may receive a disposition hearing under the juvenile court law only if he or she is found to be fit under rule 5.772. However, if the court and parties agree, the minor may be sentenced in adult court.
(D) If the minor is found unfit, the minor must be sentenced as an adult, unless all parties, including the court, agree that the disposition be conducted under juvenile court law.
(2) If the minor is convicted of an offense not listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(b) or 707(d), but one for which the minor would have been presumed fit under the juvenile court law, the minor must have a disposition hearing under juvenile court law, and
79 consistent with the provisions of Penal Code section 1170.19, either in the trial court or on remand to the juvenile court.
(A) If the prosecuting attorney objects to the treatment of the minor as within the juvenile court law and moves for a fitness hearing to be conducted, the court must order the probation department to prepare a report as required by rule 5.768.
(B) The court may conduct a fitness hearing or remand the matter to the juvenile court for a determination of fitness.
(C) If found to be fit under rule 5.770, the minor will be subject to a disposition hearing under juvenile court law and Penal Code section 1170.19.
(D) If the minor is found unfit, the minor must be sentenced as an adult, unless all parties, including the court, agree that the disposition be conducted under juvenile court law.
(3) If the minor is convicted of an offense that would not have permitted a fitness determination, the court must remand the matter to juvenile court for disposition, unless the minor requests sentencing in adult court and all parties, including the court, agree.
(4) Fitness hearings held under this rule must be conducted as provided in title 5, division 3, chapter 14, article 2.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
Rule 4.510 amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2001.
Juarez Sentenced to 17 Years in State Prison
Jan 16, 2009 — Santa Barbara Independent
With the gang enhancement, Juarez was facing 14 to 22 years behind bars in an adult prison, though Hill did have an option to sentence Juarez to probation. While Dozer asked Hill for the maximum and Atkins asked for the judge to take away the 10-year gang enhancement penalty, the decision was ultimately Hill’s, with no room for him to opt out of sentencing Juarez as an adult. The sentence he opted for was the recommendation from the Probation Department, which issued an extensive report on Juarez’s background. “Clearly there has to be some sense of retribution and justice for the Linares family,” Hill said in rendering the sentence, which he explained as “commiserate with the crime that was done.”
Now based on the above references and the Judges statement from above do you not agree with me that maybe the court
Taken from proposition 21
A) The minor is alleged to have committed an offense which if committed by an adult would be punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.
Below is more concerns I have with Judge Hill and his actions regarding his authority to allow immunity in order two obtain valuable testimony from key witness's even after the have invoked there right to use the fifth amendment so as not to passable incriminate themselves.
Juarez Witnesses Plead Fifth During Questioning
Defense Counsel Atkins Cites Fear of Retaliation as Motive
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
By Devon Claire Flannery
“There's no doubt in my mind that if he were called to testify he might incriminate himself,” said Judge Brian Hill after Romero had stepped off the witness stand.
Today, the defense brought to the stand Ricardo Romero, nicknamed “Stomper,” another minor, whom they are trying prove was actually responsible for the stabbing death. At his attorney’s suggestion, Romero also invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. “There's no doubt in my mind that if he were called to testify he might incriminate himself,” said Judge Brian Hill after Romero had stepped off the witness stand
“Stomper” Testimony Recreated in Juarez Trial
Reenactment Allows Jury to Consider Account from Preliminary Hearing
The reenactment of Stomper's cross-examination during Juarez’s August 2007 preliminary hearing used a transcript of that testimony to introduce to the jury information otherwise blocked by Stomper's refusal to testify at trial. Earlier, Stomper had been sworn in as a witness but invoked his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself. Before the reading began, Judge Brian Hill instructed the jury to take it in as if they were watching the actual witness being questioned on the stand, under oath.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/4_35ethics.htm
(9) A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or
impending proceeding in any court, and shall not make any nonpublic
How does the Judge know that "Stomper was not lying before?
Why do they allow this?
Richardo A.K.A. Stomper was granted use immunity in the first of two priliminary hearing by the district attorney’. Judge Hill later uses his right as Judge to order a different juvenile witness to testify who had also tried to avoid giving his statement under oath by pleading the fifth. In that story the Judge reassures the witness he will not allow new charges to be charged in exchange for his testimony. So my question to you all than is why did he not allow the public defenders to offer there defendant the best defense possible by ordering Richardo A.K.A. stomper to testify and clear up any contradictions from his preliminary testimony as reported by the news media?
Interesting links F.Y.I.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182502.pdf
from the dept of justice
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/-help-stop-child-executions
In regards to Ricardo Juarez
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/delinq/adult.htm
also this self help center from the courts is in Spanish and English
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2008/feb/17/juveniles-tried-as-adults-up-170-da-cites-gang/
Based on The Juarez trial assault would have been the correct adult charge
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/jv060.pdf
this booklet is very clear in lawyers communicating with parents and the need for an interpreter
No comments:
Post a Comment