Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on January 15, 2005, 08:28:01 AM
-
source (http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=975971&tw=wn_wire_story)
LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- An undercover agent in a sting that sent dozens of black people to prison on bogus drug charges was convicted of one of two perjury counts, and a jury recommended he serve probation.
Tom Coleman was acquitted Friday of testifying falsely in a 2003 hearing that as a sheriff's deputy he never stole gas from county pumps, but he was found guilty of saying that he did not learn about the theft charge against him until August 1998.
The charges stemmed from Coleman's testimony in hearings for former drug defendants to determine whether they got fair trials. He could not be prosecuted for testimony he gave at the trials because the statute of limitations had expired.
Jurors deliberated his punishment for less than an hour before recommending probation. They sentenced him to seven years in prison, but because he didn't have any prior felony convictions decided that he could serve the time on probation.
The judge agreed and will rule Tuesday on the length and terms of the sentence.
Coleman shut his eyes and dropped his head when the judge spoke of the seven-year prison sentence. He started to fight back tears when hearing that jurors said he could serve it on probation.
John H. Read II, Coleman's defense attorney, said probation "is punishment enough."
But prosecutors said he deserved a harsher punishment, going into detail about the drug busts in Tulia for the first time in the trial.
Coleman arrested 46 people, most of them black, in the small, mostly white farming community of Tulia. He worked alone and used no audio or video surveillance, and no drugs were ever found, but 38 defendants were convicted or reached plea deals.
Gov. Rick Perry pardoned 35 of the defendants in 2003, after an investigation into the drug cases was launched amid charges they were racially motivated.
Freddie Brookins Jr., one of the people sent to prison on Coleman's word, told jurors that he was bitter about being convicted of something he didn't do.
"I missed seeing my kids grow up," said Brookins, 27, who was pardoned by the governor.
Prosecutor Rod Hobson said Coleman deserves prison time because "people went to prison, Freddie Brookins went to prison, because of his worthless words. He should be held accountable for that."
Last year, 45 of those arrested in the Tulia busts split a $6 million settlement of a civil rights lawsuit against Coleman and the 26 counties and three cities involved with the drug task force for which he worked.
Probation? He should get the maximum sentence allowed under the law. He put a stain on every law enforcement officers word.
-
Yeah I saw this on 60 Minutes a while back. While cops will always have my support those that abuse thier power should be sentenced to the full allowance of the law. What happened to Coleman just sends the wrong message and the abuse continues...
-
Speaking of which...
A white man kills a black man.
A white man kills a white man for the same reasons.
In which situation will the sentence be MUCH longer? Does this change by region?
-
"Freddie Brookins Jr., one of the people sent to prison on Coleman's word, told jurors that he was bitter about being convicted of something he didn't do.
"I missed seeing my kids grow up," said Brookins, 27, who was pardoned by the governor.
Prosecutor Rod Hobson said Coleman deserves prison time because "people went to prison, Freddie Brookins went to prison, because of his worthless words. He should be held accountable for that." "
The guy should get life.
eskimo
-
It changes region to region judge to judge because of the US legal system.
I am sure that the prosecutor will appeal and eventually justice will be done.
Our legal system is far from perfect but it's about the best system I have seen in the world IMO.
The other side to this is there maybe other facts we are not aware of but the jury certainly was when they said "this is fair".
Crumpp
-
IMHO he should have served the 7 behind bars. It's only fair for what he did denying freedom for others.:mad:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It changes region to region judge to judge because of the US legal system.
I am sure that the prosecutor will appeal and eventually justice will be done.
Our legal system is far from perfect but it's about the best system I have seen in the world IMO.
The other side to this is there maybe other facts we are not aware of but the jury certainly was when they said "this is fair".
Crumpp
Legal system, you say.
What about the 'mind crimes' prosecuted in the US (and the Great Britain?) when people got busted not for the crime itself but for the intention to commit the such.
I am talking about the active provocation practices of the undercover police agents who lure innocent people into nonexistent crime activity by posing as drug dealers, prostitutes, terrorists. When you buy some pot-grass from an undercover police officer it can't be a crime because he is the guy who is responsible for supplying you with this stuff. Even it you consider this provocation to be a crime, who should get longer sentence, the buyer or the seller?
In most of the so-called civilized countries such a situation is called 'police provocation' and the judges throw these cases into the waste-paper buckets. But in the "fortress of the democracy"
these cases are legit !??? As well as the trial of a French couple for performing oral sex behind the closed doors of their hotel room during the Olympic games in Atlanta !
So much for the "about the best" legal system in the world.
I wish I could have the statistics on the number of people put into the jails here in the USA as the result of these police provocation practices which are exactly the same as the Gestapo methods. Even without this particular statistics a reasonable man can question the qulity of the American legal system when he learns about the number of people behind the bars in the US jails (second after Russia, as I remember). :( :rolleyes:
-
Unless the officer throws you to the ground, puts a gun against your head and makes you buy pot or *****, then you are a willing participant in the act. The act is what is against the law, so your willingness to participate makes you guilty.
-
If I read the article correctly all he was "CONVICTED" of is purgery? We ALL know that's not a crime nore should it demand a prison sentence. (See: William Jefferson Clinton)
-
The federal prosecuter can still bring him up on denial of civil rights. He can still get prison.
-
What about the 'mind crimes' prosecuted in the US (and the Great Britain?) when people got busted not for the crime itself but for the intention to commit the such.
You need to educate yourself on "entrapment".
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
Crumpp
-
Well there is a precedent for perjury at the Federal level with no punishment......
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Well there is a precedent for perjury at the Federal level with no punishment......
yup :D
and not to be a totally insesitive bellybutton I think this guy is a disgusting human being and should spend the same amount of time in prison of the people he wrongly got convicted.
-
He needs to be in jail for the aggregate of all those people's terms.
-
off topic/inflammatory
-
Try this one. Same exact information so you can get an education on "entrapment" and US Law.
http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-ENTRAPMENT.htm
Jacobson v. United States , 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992) (quoted source omitted). However, those agents "may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Id. And that is the essence of the defense of entrapment: a situation where the "evil intent" and the "criminal design" of the offense originate in the mind of the government agent, and the defendant would not have committed an offense of that character except for the urging of the agent. State v. Hilleshiem ,
If there is no evidence that the police did any more than create an opportunity for the commission of an offense, then the issue of entrapment should not be submitted to the jury. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the cases uniformly hold that there has been no entrapment when the police have offered only an opportunity for the commission of an offense. A good rule would be that, unless there is some evidence of the use of objectionable inducements , the issue of entrapment should not be given to the jury (emphasis added).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=wisctapp2%5C2q99%5C98-2275e&invol=1
You can't force anyone to commit a crime nor persuade them to do it. All Law enforcement can do is create the opportunity. Any encouragement blows the entire case. Check out "fruits of the poison tree".
BTW the info on the first site in regards to entrapment is correct.
What about the 'mind crimes' prosecuted in the US (and the Great Britain?) when people got busted not for the crime itself but for the intention to commit the such.
Is an uninformed and false statement about the US legal system. Please point out these "mind crimes". Facts are they do not exist.
Crumpp
-
a cops word is unquestioned in court (unless you have solid evidence), thats an amazing amount of trust, and many deserve it. but, with that type of trust should come equally serious responsibility.
IMO, in a case of a cop lying, testifying that he knows things he only believes, planting evidence in a criminal case or -if they cover for or keep quite while knowing that another does- there should be no statute of limitation, the sentence should simply be the double the maximum sentence that the accused faced. in this case double max sentence faced be each and every one of the accused.
they same formula should be applied with equal vigor regardless of the color of the cops or the accused's skin.
-
A crooked cop is worse than a criminal. They should send HIM to prison instead.
-
Originally posted by montag
A crooked cop is worse than a criminal. They should send HIM to prison instead.
(this is my opinion, and as such. no reason to argue or debate it with me. {I'm a real hardhead about these kinds of things} just something to think about.)
he should get death sentence or put him in with the general population for life, one or the other, let him choose.
anyone (voted or hired) who works for the public, is in a position of trust. committing crimes in those positions, makes one guilty, of one count, of each crime against each and every person in society. thusly a crime against the public as a whole.
In my personal [opinion], such a person is by far, worse than a mass murderer. and I think mass murderers should be sentenced to impalement via Vlad the Impaler's method. [/opinion]
-
This law:
Section 241. Conspiracy against rights
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=241
Combined with this Law:
Section 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_242.html
He is supposed to get prison. The Law mandates it.
I am sure this decision will be overturned on appeal by the state. Once they get out of his jurisdiction where the legal systems knows him on a personal basis, he will fry.
Especially when the lawsuits start rolling in from the wrongly imprisoned citizens he put away start hitting the pocketbooks of the state.
Crumpp
-
"equal justice for all"?
Where did you get that? I always thought it was "and justice for all". There's absolutely no such thing as "equal justice".
Also, there's no such thing as appealing a sentance with a guilty conviction by the procesution. They can express disappointment, but are powerless to do anything else.
The guy deserves jailtime for what he did. That seems pretty obvious to me. But unless he can be brought up on new charges, there's really nothing else to be said or done on the subject other than try to find ways to identify situations like this before the statute of limitations arrises or even to make better attempts to limit this type of behavior by police officers. Unfortunately, the policy needs to come down throught the police force as well as the mentality. That doesn't seem to be happening in many places these days.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
But unless he can be brought up on new charges, there's really nothing else to be said or done on the subject other than try to find ways to identify situations like this before the statute of limitations arrises or even to make better attempts to limit this type of behavior by police officers.
and change the statute of limitations on these types of cases so that there isn't one. making these a top prosecution priority would also be on my list as a necessary step.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
"equal justice for all"?
Where did you get that? I always thought it was "and justice for all". There's absolutely no such thing as "equal justice".
The phrase is "equal justice under law" and it comes from The Supreme Court. I was asking a question in the thread title.
(http://www.ericajackson.com/goes_to/dc/supreme_ct/equal_justice.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
This law:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=241
Combined with this Law:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_242.html
He is supposed to get prison. The Law mandates it.
I am sure this decision will be overturned on appeal by the state. Once they get out of his jurisdiction where the legal systems knows him on a personal basis, he will fry.
Especially when the lawsuits start rolling in from the wrongly imprisoned citizens he put away start hitting the pocketbooks of the state.
Crumpp
THE ONLY THING HE WAS CONVICTED OF IS PURGERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why he is not going to jail. As we all know purgery is not a real crime to go to jail for.
-
Yeah it's wrong Gunslinger. I am sure the state will appeal and since his department did not have the nuts to charge him under 241, 242, you can bet the state will.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah it's wrong Gunslinger. I am sure the state will appeal and since his department did not have the nuts to charge him under 241, 242, you can bet the state will.
Crumpp
exactly....people can cry fowl all they want about the sentence but the jury probably wasnt allowed to hear about his record. this guy is an bellybutton bag no doubt but all he did (convicted) was lie under oath.
-
Crumpp, the procecution CAN NOT APPEAL. That is called double jeopardy. Appeals are for the defendant. They can, however charge him with another seperate charge that he was not previously procecuted on.
Guns, I know you hate Clinton, but lying about getting a hummer is hardly the same thing as a law enforcement officer presenting false testemony against an innocent defendant, especially when it results in an innocent man going to prison.
Let's say there is a JAG that for whatever reason hates your guts and totally fabricates a case against you and you wind up doing 7 years brig time for something you absolutely did not do. How would you feel if he got caught and only got a letter of reprimand after you served 7 hard?
-
This guy should serve 1 day for every day that incorrectly convicted people served. I don't care what race his victims were. It should be hard time too, I'm sure his victims didn't get easy time.
-
Thus, it has long been recognized that in the same term of court and before the defendant has begun serving the sentence the court may recall him and increase his sentence.129
Applying and modifying these principles, the Court narrowly approved the constitutionality of a statutory provision for sentencing of ''dangerous special offenders,'' which authorized prosecution appeals of sentences and permitted the appellate court to affirm, reduce, or increase the sentence.132 The Court held that the provision did not offend the double jeopardy clause. Sentences had never carried the finality that attached to acquittal, and its precedents indicated to the Court that imposition of a sentence less than the maximum was in no sense an ''acquittal'' of the higher sentence. Appeal resulted in no further trial or other proceedings to which a defendant might be subjected, only the imposition of a new sentence. An increase in a sentence would not constitute multiple punishment, the Court continued, inasmuch as it would be within the allowable sentence and the defendant could have no legitimate expectation of finality in the sentence as first given because the statutory scheme alerted him to the possibility of increase. Similarly upheld as within the allowable range of punishment contemplated by the legislature was a remedy for invalid multiple punishments under consecutive sentences: a shorter felony conviction was vacated, and time served was credited to the life sentence imposed for felony-murder. Even though the first sentence had been commuted and hence fully satisfied at the time the trial court revised the second sentence, the resulting punishment was ''no greater than the legislature intended,'' hence there was no double jeopardy violation.133
http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment05/05.html#f129
The court certainly has the power to both recall and increase his sentence. He was convicted not acquitted. They can also move it from parole to hard time.
They could also take the route of charging him with a different crime, most likely 241 and 242.
I will bet this guy gets tried again down the road. Those lawsuits resulting from this case have not started hitting the Local Government. When they start having to dish out millions to men he falsely sent to prison local attitudes will be different.
I am sure the attorney's are lining up at the Prison gates to greet these guys when they are released.
Crumpp
-
Looks like I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue.
(http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/pages/eiga/HU/Previews/Plans-38527.jpg)
-
:lol
Nice pic rpm!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by rpm
Crumpp, the procecution CAN NOT APPEAL. That is called double jeopardy. Appeals are for the defendant. They can, however charge him with another seperate charge that he was not previously procecuted on.
Guns, I know you hate Clinton, but lying about getting a hummer is hardly the same thing as a law enforcement officer presenting false testemony against an innocent defendant, especially when it results in an innocent man going to prison.
Let's say there is a JAG that for whatever reason hates your guts and totally fabricates a case against you and you wind up doing 7 years brig time for something you absolutely did not do. How would you feel if he got caught and only got a letter of reprimand after you served 7 hard?
I guess it's just me but law is written in black and white and purgery is purgery. I would agree with you that he shouldnt have been asked those questions to begin with but he still lied under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He can split hairs all he wants with the definition of the word "is" but its still purgery. When we start mincing words and say some lying is worse then others you corrupt truth. Just MHO though.
"looks like I picked a bad week to quit smoking crack" ;)
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
"Freddie Brookins Jr., one of the people sent to prison on Coleman's word, told jurors that he was bitter about being convicted of something he didn't do.
"I missed seeing my kids grow up," said Brookins, 27, who was pardoned by the governor.
Prosecutor Rod Hobson said Coleman deserves prison time because "people went to prison, Freddie Brookins went to prison, because of his worthless words. He should be held accountable for that." "
The guy should get life.
eskimo
Dunno about life but I think the guy should do as much time in jail as the the person who served the most time in jail for something he didnt do.
If the longest term served is 10 years for example let him serve 10 years.
And not in any soft prison either. In the same type prison the people he screwed over had to serve.
And not in solitary either. Among the population just like everyone else.
He'll get what he deserves that way
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Unless the officer throws you to the ground, puts a gun against your head and makes you buy pot or *****, then you are a willing participant in the act. The act is what is against the law, so your willingness to participate makes you guilty.
Agreed but an officer shouldnt be allowed to break the law in order to catch someone breaking the law.
Selling drugs is a crime.
So is offering services as a prostitute.
Yet police do both in order to catch people
-
How much trouble did you get into Drediock?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
THE ONLY THING HE WAS CONVICTED OF IS PURGERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why he is not going to jail. As we all know purgery is not a real crime to go to jail for.
Which brings me to this thought.
shouldnt he also and at the very LEAST be charged with false imprisonment?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Which brings me to this thought.
shouldnt he also and at the very LEAST be charged with false imprisonment?
I totally agree with you. I don't know other specifics of THIS case but you can charge somone all you want, getting a conviction is another story.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How much trouble did you get into Drediock?
LMAO
"I" didnt get into any. I've seen it though
I in my youth was always smart enough to stay away from such traps. And I never did much to get in that much trouble for anyway
Oddly enough the only time I've even been questioned by cops about something were for things I didnt do.
No offence ment to Cops here but most of ya's have a certain mannerism about ya's that tips people off if they pay attention
But I know of two such instances 1 a friend (drugs)and 1 a brother in law (prostitute)
Both cases were even by the definition of the links provided were by definition entrapment.
Neither got off
-
Originally posted by genozaur
off topic/inflammatory
It's been on topic and was not inflammatory.
Mr. White or whoever tries to gag me.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Unless the officer throws you to the ground, puts a gun against your head and makes you buy pot or *****, then you are a willing participant in the act. The act is what is against the law, so your willingness to participate makes you guilty.
Willingness is a state of mind.
So I am right when I talk about the persecution of 'mind crimes' in the USA.
Thank you for the support of my point of view.
-
You can think about it all you want. When you offer the policman money for a BJ, or take the drugs in your hand, you are not thinking about it, you are doing it.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
It's been on topic and was not inflammatory.
Mr. White or whoever tries to gag me.
Last edited by Skuzzy on 01-17-2005 at 02:48 PM
Yeah, I'd pursue that line of thought.
(http://www.ara-animation.com/library/ARA_Wholesale/gerard_baldwin/gb_bullwinkle1.jpg)
-
Yup 7 years is fair.
Thats 7 years for each person he falsely sent to prison thats is.
And then think they need to look into the possibility of this being a hate crime as well.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
THE ONLY THING HE WAS CONVICTED OF IS PURGERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why he is not going to jail. As we all know purgery is not a real crime to go to jail for.
Tell that to Martha Stewart. ;)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
You can think about it all you want. When you offer the policman money for a BJ, or take the drugs in your hand, you are not thinking about it, you are doing it.
Never in my life have I offered the policeman money for a BJ. Gay prostitution is not my specialty. :D
-
Just as fortunately there would be very few Policemen so desperate as to allow you to give them a BJ.