Santa Ana California - The Orange County Register reported that more than 25 years after the killing of Jimmy Casino, the murder has been solved and the case closed on one of Orange County's most notorious murder mysteries. Richard C....
Guilty Verdict in Quarter Century Old Murder Case
↧
↧
ISP investigates a single vehicle fatality crash on I84 west of Wendell
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE
District 4 Patrol 218 West Yakima, Jerome, ID 83338-5904 (208) 324-6000
Fax (208) 324-7897
For Immediate Release: 05/03/2013 4:05 PM
Please direct questions to the District Office
On May 3, 2013, at approximately 7:52 AM, the Idaho State Police investigated a fatal crash involving one vehicle on Interstate 84 at milepost 155, just west of Wendell, ID. James Scalmanini, 73, of Colorado, was driving westbound on Interstate 84 in a Chrysler Town and Country van, when he fell asleep. His vehicle went off the left shoulder, then back onto the roadway. Scalmanini lost control of the vehicle and exited off the left shoulder where it overturned in the median. His passenger, Jean Scalmanini, 70, of Colorado was ejected from the vehicle and succumbed to her injuries on scene.
The westbound lanes of the Interstate were blocked for Air St. Luke's Medical transport, for approximately one hour. Gooding County Sheriffs and Wendell PD assisted. Alcohol is not a factor in the crash and it is unknown if seatbelts were worn by all parties. The crash is still under investigation.
-------------
↧
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.Which leads us to the following age-old question:Can a police officer take my cell phone and look at naked pictures of my girlfriend?Not anymore. Well, not without a warrant. So said the Florida Supreme Court yesterday with their decision in Smallwood. Smallwood v. State of Florida. (SC11-1130, May 2, 2013).Here is the link to the text of the decision: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2013/sc11-1130.pdfSmallwood was a small time robber who apparently hit it big with an alleged armed robbery of a convenience store in Jacksonville, Florida. The day after the robbery, the police issued an Arrest Warrant for Smallwood. Eleven days after the robbery, the police arrested Smallwood and confiscated his property, including his cell phone. (The cell phone was NOT listed on the property receipt). Thirteen months later, and on the eve of trial, the arresting officer told the trial prosecutor about the cell phone for the first time. The officer had accessed the contents on the phone and discovered five photos that he thought could be related directly to the crime charged. The prosecutor sought to use these photos in the trial and the defense objected to the admission of the photos found on the phone. (The prosecutor had actually obtained a search warrant before seeking to use the photos at trial).Defense counsel filed a Motion To Suppress which was heard by the trial court judge. The defense argued that Smallwood had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data and information stored within his mini-computer cell phone. "During a hearing on the motion, defense counsel reiterated that people have an expectation of privacy in their technologically advanced phones, which are small electronic data sources, and that the Officer's search of the cell phone, data, and images constituted an invasion of that constitutional zone of privacy. "The trial court denied the motion to suppress, specifically relying upon the decision in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1981). Smallwood was convicted.On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal Affirmed. "In rejecting Smallwood’s Fourth Amendment challenge, the district court relied upon United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest warrant exception permits a search and inspection of the contents of personal items found on the arrestee, even if it is unlikely that the arrestee has a weapon or evidence related to the crime on his person."Despite affirming the trial court's decision on the admissibility of the cell phone images, the First District expressed great concern about its ruling and in light of those concerns, they certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court as one addressing a matter of great public importance.Justice Lewis, writing for a 5-2 majority, quashed the decision of the First District. Canady wrote a dissent with Polston joining.In reversing the lower court, Lewis wrote: " ... the electronic devices that operate as cell phones of today are materially distinguishable from the static, limited-capacity cigarette packet in Robinson, not only in the ability to hold, import, and export private information, but by the very personal and vast nature of the information that may be stored on them or accessed through the electronic devices. Consistent with this conclusion, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Robinson, which governed the search of a static, non-interactive container, cannot be deemed analogous to the search of a modern electronic device cell phone. "The court went on to state that, "the United States Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of cell phone searches under the search-incident-to-arrest warrant exception.""We have carefully reviewed and considered the decisional law that addresses this unresolved Fourth Amendment issue, and we conclude that the line of cases requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before accessing the data, information, and content of an electronic device cell phone that is removed from a defendant at the time of arrest is, quite simply, more persuasive. "Finally, in responding to the Canady dissent, which asserted that the majority decision had "the potential to work much mischief in Fourth Amendment law," Lewis wrote: "Our decision actually protects the Fourth Amendment and United States Supreme Court precedent by ensuring that the exceptions to the warrant requirement remain "jealously and carefully drawn," and by mandating that there be "a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 (1971).On that final note, Fox News contributor, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, wrote a must read piece yesterday he called: "Poking holes in the Fourth Amendment to let government snoop on you". You can read that at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/02/more-holes-in-fourth-amendment/#ixzz2SGreZ1tIIn the words of our Executive Editor and Blog Chief, Horace Rumpole: Here's seeing you in Court. I'll be the one with the double encrypted password protected Samsung Galaxy S4.Enjoy your sunny South Florida weekend.CAPTAIN OUT ......captain4justice@gmail.com Site Feed
↧
Can the prosecutor call someone a liar?
Unless you have been on a 5 year vacation, you could probably pick Jodi Arias out of a lineup. You have heard Nancy Grace talk about Jodi Arias so much that you probably change the channel, which means I should definitely take the time to write about her here, right?
The point of this blog is not to comment on Jodi Arias or Travis Alexander or the death penalty or how capital punishment is used in Arizona, but to highlight a portion of the trial that most jurors cannot wait for attorneys to get to: closing arguments.
Today I had a person call the office to ask a "legal question": "Can the prosecutor call someone a liar in closing arguments?" Now, we all know this really could have been answered by Google, but I briefly and politely answered her question.
While the author of this blog is never comfortable with name-calling at any portion of any trial, the short answer is "yes." When a witness takes the stand in any trial, the credibility of that witness is always at issue. In this case, Jodi Arias waived her right against self-incrimination and took the witness stand in her own defense. By testifying on her own behalf, Jodi Arias opened herself up (pun intended) to be cross-examined by the prosecutor. Since she had given various accounts of what actually happened, the prosecutors attempted to impeach her with her own statements. Jodi Arias told police and investigators (and even the jury) at least three (3) different versions of what happened. By definition, one or more of those versions were not truthful.
There are subject areas and comments that attorneys are not allowed to mention during closing argument. The Mississippi Supreme Court has widely rejected impermissible arguments during closing: "Although it is the duty of the district attorney to prosecute a case with diligence, he or she should guard against doing or saying anything which would prejudice the minds of the jurors or tend to cause them to decide a case on something other than the evidence." McCaskill v. State, 227 So. 2d 847 (Miss. 1969).
In other words, attorneys are not allowed to make arguments that are merely to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jurors. Take a look at these few examples:
"A prosecutor's comment regarding the prospect of allowing a 13-year-old defendant charged with murder to go free in a jurors' neighborhood was impermissible. The prosecutor was not arguing a statement of fact that was in evidence or that was relevant to an issue before jury, but was improperly attempting to frighten the jury." Dancer v. State, 721 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 1998).
"A prosecutor's repeated, improper comments encouraging the jury to "send a message" to the community and to "do something about the crime in this county" were not harmless error in a prosecution for aggravated assault and shooting into a dwelling house. The prosecutor violated the rules five times and, in the process, attempted to mislead the trial judge as to the prevailing law on the propriety of such argument, and the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming." Brown v. State, 986 So. 2d 270 (Miss. 2008).
In closing (another intended pun), attorneys should stick to the evidence (or lack thereof) and argument that can be made based on that evidence. Personal opinions of attorneys are not allowed. Attorneys can lead the horse to the water, but they simply should not force the horse's head into the water to force the horse to drink.
↧
Martin on Public Dissemination of Mug Shots During Ongoing Criminal Proceedings
Whitney T. Martin has posted From the Police Precinct to Your Neighbor's Coffee Table: Limiting Public Dissemination of Mug Shots During an Ongoing Criminal Proceeding Under the Freedom of Information Act (Iowa Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the...
↧
↧
FRE 404(b): Hamilton Dissent Explains Proper District Court FRE 404(b) Analysis
United States v. Nicolas Gomez, No. 12-1104. Editor's Note. Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney represented Mr. Gomez at trial and on appeal. Mr. Gomez's case is currently pending a Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals....
↧
Materni on Criminal Punishment and the Pursuit of Justice
Mike C. Materni has posted Criminal Punishment and the Pursuit of Justice (2 Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies 263 (2013)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Since the beginning of recorded history societies have punished offenders while at the same...
↧
Is there mandatory minimum's for BUI?
No. Unlike DUI convictions - there is no mandatory minimum sentence for Boating Under the Influence (BUI). BUI is currently a misdemeanor in Washington State. Therefore, the maximum penalties in Washington State are 90 days in jail and $1000 in...
↧
Toronto Pastor, Wife Accused of $8.6 Million Ponzi Scheme
Toronto police have accused a local pastor and his wife of defrauding more than 200 parishioners out of nearly $9 million in a massive Ponzi scheme. Marlon Gary Hibbert, 49, and Verna Hibbert, 48, were charged with thirty-eight counts of fraud are facing thirty-eight counts of fraud. In addition, Lorraine Bahlmann, an administrative clerk, was also charged with fraud in connection with her role in sending falsified account statements to victims. The Hibberts could face decades in prison if convicted of the fraud charges.
According to authorities, the fraud occurred between 2005 and 2010, when Marlon Hibbert served as pastor at the Masonic Church of God. Parishioners were solicited to invest with Hibbert, who claimed that he could deliver annual returns of 8.5% by engaging in foreign exchange ("forex") trading. Based on these promises, at least parishioners are thought to have invested nearly $9 million.
However, Hibbert did not engage in forex trading, but instead ran an elaborate Ponzi scheme that used investor funds to sustain a luxurious lifestyle that included expensive cars and high-end homes. Victims who thought they were receiving their promised interest payments were instead being paid with funds from incoming investors.
The news comes several years after Hibbert was the subject of an inquiry by the Ontario Securities Commission after he ran a similar fraud while operating the Dominion World Outreach Ministries. Hibbert did not appear for the hearing, and was later found to have committed fraud in what one of the OSC commissions called one of the worst frauds he had ever seen.
Toronto police believe many more victims remain unaccounted for, and are urging them to come forward.
↧
↧
"What I Saw at San Quentin"
The title of this post is the title of this interesting new post at Crime & Consequences by Michael Rushford, President of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. The post describes at great length a recent tour of what was California's first...
↧
The Government Is Planting Child Porn On Your Computer?
Original Article05/02/2013By Amber HarrisonA new virus has been cataloged, and it appears to be planting and distributing child pornography files. Hackers? No. The government is planting child porn on your computer, or so an alert published today indicates.Before It’s News has interviewed a person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, that has been a victim of the virus implantation. The person was engaged in journalistic exposure of political corruption, and suddenly police appeared on his doorstep with a search warrant specifying a search for evidence of possessing and distributing child pornography. The story is a bit convoluted here, but basically the gentleman did a little more investigation and found rogue .exe files on his computer that appeared as normal emule sharing directories but contained “hundreds to thousands” of child pornography files. The potential whistleblower claims the virus was deliberately planted on his computer in order to stop his activity.
The article surmises the Internet Crimes Against Children task force may be behind the virus planting, though why is unclear.Are You A Victim?
According to a USWGO Virus Report:“I believe it was surrounded by comine.exe along with another exe file that had random characters so I don’t remember that file name since it had a certain kind of random characters and I believe it may have been in the TEMP folder.
It came with three rogue P2P file sharing applications that were not stored in the usual file directories for programs or even portable programs. Those files are called ares.exe, emule.exe, and shareaza.exe. They share possibly illegal files and files with Trojans embedded without the computer owners permission despite invalid claims by law enforcement that no one can force a user to download and share files on P2P networks. When the user discovers them and attempts to shut down the program using process termination on Task Manager(taskmgr.exe) the rogue Trojan control program attempts to revive the operation of the rogue P2P programs and will fully operate within 3-5 seconds or even up to 10 seconds depending on processing speed from CPU. No matter how many times the user continues stopping the program it comes right back. When the user attempts to end the task then quickly remove the files even with certain software, the Trojan that controls the rogue programs seems to regenerate the rogue programs which continues to share and download illegal material which can get the user in trouble…”ESET Virus Radar has recognized the virus, and calls it Win32/MoliVampire. The short description indicates, “Win32/MoliVampire.A is a trojan which tries to download other malware from the Internet. Win32/MoliVampire.A may be spread via peer-to-peer networks.”
The trojan contains an URL address. It tries to download a file from the address. Files are copied into a shared folder of various instant messengers and P2P applications, according to the description.
In a hurried article posted on Before It’s News, a reporter emoted:So anyone whom receives this virus or variants of Trojans similar to this virus, is at risk of being accused of distributing and possessing child pornography then having the computers and family photos, videos, and other personal data taken away forever. Then will likely end up years in federal or state prison then receives a lifetime sex offender record, isn’t that just great!!!!!ICE Pads Their Stats
Evidently, it isn’t only alternative-news journalists who are being targeted. According to a Facebook page supporting 17-year-old autistic youth Andrew Rose:“Operation Flicker was started By ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency]. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the second largest investigative agency in the federal government. Created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Operation Flicker” is part of Project Predator, a nationwide ICE initiative to protect children from sexual predators, including instances of sex tourism with minors, Internet child pornographers, criminal alien sex offenders, and child sex traffickers, according to the agency. Unfortunately, due to the system being used to net these predators, many children are being exposed to the the same Child Porn they were trying to stop.”
Apparently, in an effort to catch these dangerous internet predators, ICE attached child pornography images to .mp3 files on P2P sharing sites like LimeWire. Young Andrew Rose (Petition) downloaded two songs that came with little surprise packages attached. Scandalously and shamefully, Andrew is actually being prosecuted. His lawyer, on the support page, stated:“The FBI and ICE are the ones who exposed Andrew Rose to Child Pornography ….. They were the Traffickers and became “That which they Seek.”What Can You Do?
Computer users, especially those who use P2P file sharing programs and messaging, are encouraged to use ESET of McAfee virus scan/destroy software as both recognize the virus. It is noted that virus protection is not “bulletproof” with regard to this virus, and certainly will not protect against hidden attached files in normal sharing operations. If the government is planting child porn on your computer as some people have claimed, taking any and all steps possible to protect yourself and your family, including ceasing use of P2P applications, is advisable.See Also:I spy ... porn? Suspected NASA snoop busted for misusing laptop
Government child porn & other sex crimes
© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Long Beach DUI Sports News: Trumaine Johnson of St. Louis Rams Busted for Misdemeanor DUI in Missoula
Although this blog focuses on Long Beach DUI cases, we’ve been covering a surprisingly sizable number of cases out of the Big Sky State of Montana recently. ![long-beach-dui-trumaine.jpg]()
To wit, The Associated Press is reporting that Trumaine Johnson, a cornerback with the St. Louis Rams, got arrested for a misdemeanor DUI, after police saw him driving without his headlights.
Like many Long Beach DUI defendants do, he refused a breath test. Police booked him into jail. He later secured his released on a $700 bond. The former University of Montana star had a great first year with the Rams, racking up 31 tackles and 2 interceptions as a first year player. Not bad.
Obviously, without knowing any more details, we can only speculate on what happened -- why he got the DUI. Perhaps, for instance, he would have passed the breath test had he chosen to take it. As we’ve reported in multiple posts, DUI breath tests are surprisingly unreliable – in both directions. For instance, if you exhale very lightly into a machine -- or if the machine isn’t calibrated -- you can blow a negative, when really you're technically positive for Long Beach DUI. On the other hand, if you blow a very deep breath -- or if you're on an intense ketogenic diet, or if you have diabetes -- you can easily blow a false positive.
It’s easy to get lost in technical details.
To that end, consider investigating your Long Beach DUI charges with the help of a qualified, respected attorney. You might also aim to focus on the deeper reasons for your Long Beach DUI stop. Perhaps the police treated you unfairly. Perhaps you weren’t even under the influence – or just barely under the influence.
In an ideal world, you want not only to beat the charges but also to prevent similarly embarrassing/danger situations from happening again.
To protect yourself (and others), you need to be very honest with yourself (and with your attorney) about what exactly happened, why, and what you can do to avoid trouble in the future.
These questions can touch on deep, troubling topics.
That’s why the most respected Long Beach DUI defense attorneys are excellent listeners – they often need to do both the “nuts and bolts” work of executing a defense and the "softer" work of counseling clients to help them become safer, more conscientious drivers.
For help managing your Long Beach DUI case, connect with the astute, thorough team at the Kraut Law Group. Attorney Michael Kraut is a former prosecutor (Senior Deputy District Attorney) who has tremendous experience on both sides of high level DUI cases.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
To wit, The Associated Press is reporting that Trumaine Johnson, a cornerback with the St. Louis Rams, got arrested for a misdemeanor DUI, after police saw him driving without his headlights.
Like many Long Beach DUI defendants do, he refused a breath test. Police booked him into jail. He later secured his released on a $700 bond. The former University of Montana star had a great first year with the Rams, racking up 31 tackles and 2 interceptions as a first year player. Not bad.
Obviously, without knowing any more details, we can only speculate on what happened -- why he got the DUI. Perhaps, for instance, he would have passed the breath test had he chosen to take it. As we’ve reported in multiple posts, DUI breath tests are surprisingly unreliable – in both directions. For instance, if you exhale very lightly into a machine -- or if the machine isn’t calibrated -- you can blow a negative, when really you're technically positive for Long Beach DUI. On the other hand, if you blow a very deep breath -- or if you're on an intense ketogenic diet, or if you have diabetes -- you can easily blow a false positive.
It’s easy to get lost in technical details.
To that end, consider investigating your Long Beach DUI charges with the help of a qualified, respected attorney. You might also aim to focus on the deeper reasons for your Long Beach DUI stop. Perhaps the police treated you unfairly. Perhaps you weren’t even under the influence – or just barely under the influence.
In an ideal world, you want not only to beat the charges but also to prevent similarly embarrassing/danger situations from happening again.
To protect yourself (and others), you need to be very honest with yourself (and with your attorney) about what exactly happened, why, and what you can do to avoid trouble in the future.
These questions can touch on deep, troubling topics.
That’s why the most respected Long Beach DUI defense attorneys are excellent listeners – they often need to do both the “nuts and bolts” work of executing a defense and the "softer" work of counseling clients to help them become safer, more conscientious drivers.
For help managing your Long Beach DUI case, connect with the astute, thorough team at the Kraut Law Group. Attorney Michael Kraut is a former prosecutor (Senior Deputy District Attorney) who has tremendous experience on both sides of high level DUI cases.
↧
Taliban Issues Statement on Guantanamo Hunger Strikes
The Islamic Emirate of Afhanistan (Taliban) have released an official statement on Guantanamo and the hunger strikes.
The Islamic Emirate, which considers the ongoing atrocity in Guantanamo as a crime against humanity and a historical disgrace for...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
The Curse of a Sex Offender or ignorant politicians?
Yes the label is a curse, but the title should be "The Curse of ignorant politicians trying to make a name for themselves!"Video Link© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Developments in Massachusetts marijuana crimes defense
Last month, the highest court in our Commonwealth issued opinions that will favorably affect persons accused of Massachusetts marijuana crimes.
In Commonwealth v. Jackson, the court decided that socially sharing small amounts of marijuana does not violate the marijuana distribution statute and that police observation of several individuals socially sharing marijuana does not provide the police with justification to conduct a warrantless search. In that case, police saw the defendant sharing an apparent "marijuana cigarette" with two other persons on a park bench. Police then search the defendant's body and backpack, in which they found less than one ounce of marijuana in ten plastic baggies. The defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute and a school zone violation. The SJC ruled that the search was not a lawful search incident to arrest. The court reasoned, in part, that the distribution statute is intended to target those "in the drug business," those who profit from dealing drugs.
In Commonwealth v. Pacheco, the court held that a state trooper did not have probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in a defendant's trunk where the trooper smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car. In that case, the trooper was patrolling a Lynn park when he saw a car improperly parked in a handicapped spot. When he approached, he noticed that the engine was running and the windows were foggy. The trooper smelled burnt marijuana, and the occupants admitted to smoking. The trooper searched the car and the bodies of the occupants and found nothing criminal. The trooper then searched the trunk and found a gun. The defendant was charged with three gun crimes, including carrying a loaded firearm without a license. Relying on Jackson, the court decided that the trooper had no probable cause to believe that the occupants were engaging in marijuana distribution based on their social sharing and that the search of the trunk was unlawful.
In Commonwealth v. Daniel, the court applied Cruz, which provided that the smell of burnt marijuana, by itself, does not provide probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime or that there is a criminal amount of contraband in a car. In Daniel, the police smelled burnt marijuana after stopping the defendants for a traffic violation. The officers searched the car after the driver produced two small bags of marijuana and found an illegal gun and ammunition. The court decided that there were no articulable facts to support a belief that any occupant possessed a criminal amount of marijuana and that, therefore, the search could not be justified by a need to search for contraband. It rejected the government's claim that there was a reasonable concern for officer safety. The court also rejected the government's claim that there was probable cause to believe that the driver was operating under the influence of drugs, noting that there was no indication that the driver's alertness was impaired by marijuana consumption and that no sobriety tests were performed.
In these cases, the court was guided by the policy goals reflected in G.L. c. 94C, § 32L, the law that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. These goals include directing police attention to serious crime and saving taxpayer money that would otherwise be wasted on the policing of simple possession.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Cause of Death
The Boston Globe reports it has seen the death certificate for Tamerlan Tsarnaev and that it states he died from gunshot wounds and blunt trauma.
The document, viewed by the Globe on Friday, shows that Tsarnaev was pronounced dead at 1:35 a.m....
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
KS - Former Wichita police officer (Greg P. Nicks) sentenced to life for child sex crimes
Greg P. NicksOriginal Article05/03/2013By HURST LAVIANA
A former Wichita police officer received consecutive life prison sentences Friday for sexually abusing a 15-month-old girl.Greg P. Nicks, 32, was given a life sentence on each of four counts of sexual exploitation of a child, and he was ordered to serve two of the sentences consecutively. He will have to serve 50 years before becoming eligible for parole.
Prosecutors said Nicks was arrested after sending sexually explicit cellphone pictures of himself and the girl to a woman he was having a sexual relationship with. The woman, Luz Coronado, 29, is serving a sentence of life without parole for 25 years on similar charges. Prosecutors said police were tipped off by the girl’s mother.
Defense lawyer Mark Schoenhofer said his client never had sexual contact with the girl. At the time, he said, Nicks was a body builder who was using steroids.
“The steroids not only increased Mr. Nicks’ muscularity, (they) also increased his appetite for sex,” Schoenhofer said in a written motion seeking a lighter prison sentence. “Mr. Nicks began leading a life of debauchery and over-indulgence in carnal pleasure. … The illicit relationship with Ms. Coronado advanced down a dark and perverted course of sexual promiscuity, including explicit text messages rife with sexual content.”
Nicks told District Judge Terry Pullman that his relationship with Coronado was an aberration.
“What I did is not what I am,” he said. “I’m just asking for a second chance. I won’t need a third.”
Prosecutor Justin Edwards introduced three written statements at the hearing, including one from the victim’s mother. She said Nicks had used her daughters — the 15-month-old and a 4-month-old — as sex objects to fulfill his sexual fantasies.
“I feel that Greg Nicks is beyond help and will act again on the impulse if given an opportunity,” she said in the statement.
Schoenhofer argued that no one was physically injured by Nicks’ behavior, and that the girls will have no memories of what Nicks did with them. Pullman said that doesn’t lessen the magnitude of the crime. He likened the crime to raping a comatose victim in a nursing home.
“A victim is no less a victim if there is no recollection of the injuries,” he said before imposing the sentence.
Nicks worked for the Wichita Police Department for just over three years beginning in 2006. He is a former football player for the Wichita Wild and the University of Kansas.© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
↧
Unsafe At Half The Price
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">Speaking at 1 Police Plaza, <a href=
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/nyregion/bloomberg-says-critics-of-police-would-make-new-yorkers-less-safe.html?src=rechp&_r=0" target="">Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers</a> the
bottom line: Unless you agree to stop and frisk, you will not be safe.</font>
<blockquote><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">“Look at what’s happened in Boston,” he said. “Remember what happened here on 9/11. Remember all of those who’ve been killed by gun violence and
the families they left behind.”</font>
<p itemprop="articleBody"><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">The mayor described criticism of the police ...</font></p></blockquote>
↧
Sixth Circuit Discusses Validity Of Search Warrant That Lacked An Address
This case began in 2008 when the Cincinnati Police were tipped off that a man named Kenneth Rose had sexually abused three minors. The police met with all three children who told authorities about being raped and then viewing pornography in Rose’s bedroom on a laptop computer. Based on the information gathered in the interviews, the police were able to obtain a warrant for Rose’s computers located in his home.The police executed the search warrant and seized Rose’s computer which revealed many images of child pornography including several that depicted Rose engaged in sexual contact with male minors. Rose was subsequently indicted on one count of possession of child pornography and five counts of production of child pornography. Rose ended up pleading guilty to three counts of production of child porn and was sentenced to fifty-one years in prison.Rose then appealed his sentence, claiming that the district court made a mistake in not suppressing the evidence collected in the search, saying that the affidavit filed by the officer never listed the address of Rose’s home and thus failed to establish a link between the location of the search and the evidence sought.The Sixth Circuit stated that for there to be probable cause justifying a search warrant, the judge must believe there is a substantial basis for thinking that evidence of a crime will be found on the premises. In this case, the affidavit explained that the name “Rose” was written over the doorbell, but did not provide a definitive link between the property and Rose. The affidavits from the victims explained that criminal activity took place in Rose’s bedroom, but never provided a specific address. The Court said that given this, there was no way to read the affidavit to conclude that the judge had the requisite basis for thinking evidence of a crime would be found at the address that was searched. The Sixth Circuit found that the affidavit did not provide probable cause to search the house.The Sixth Circuit wrote that while the affidavits show a link between criminal activity and Rose’s bedroom, no thread was ever drawn by the victims or the police to link Rose to the house that was ultimately searched. Had the police included an address in the warrant, showing that an investigation had discovered that Rose resided at the location, that alone would have been sufficient.Despite this flaw in the affidavit, the Sixth Circuit determined that the evidence collected should be admitted at court because of the good faith exception which provides for an exception to the exclusionary rule in cases where an officer conducts a search in good faith, relying on what he or she believes is a valid warrant. The Court described the error about the address as being akin to a clerical mistake and that such a small omission did not qualify the warrant as bare bones, and thus a bad faith search. Finally, because there was no indication of police misconduct, only police sloppiness, the good faith exception should apply to he search, allowing the child pornography to be admitted into evidence.To read the full opinion, click here.
↧
Smart. Too Smart
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">After a half hour on the phone, first trying to navigate voice mail and then another half hour with customer service (why, if I press 5 for tech
support, am I sent to customer service?) and finally tech support, I learned something: my smartphone's operating system was upgraded to the point where it no longer did what I wanted
it to do. The tech support gal wrapped it up nicely in jargon, but the upshot was that the phone was ...</font>
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
