PDA

View Full Version : What good might come out of matt corwins ordeal?


Grouch
11-02-2007, 1:32 PM
We all know that Matt was in fact 100% in compliance with CA gun laws.

I hope that when the charges are dropped or he is deemed innocent at trial that this will be another proof that OLL are 100% in compliance with the law and (hopefully?) be the final nail in the coffin on the issue.

I also hope that Matt sues the crap out of the state after this wins and further proves the DOJ incompetent and malicious in their attempt to bring charges on him.

xdimitrix
11-02-2007, 3:50 PM
From what I understand, dropping the charges helps us in no way. No legal opinion is ever made so it's like going back to square one.

rkt88edmo
11-02-2007, 4:07 PM
While it doesn't get an opinion, charges being dropped in different jurisdictions does set a precedent of sorts and send a message to DAs in other districts.

Grouch
11-02-2007, 4:12 PM
While it doesn't get an opinion, charges being dropped in different jurisdictions does set a precedent of sorts and send a message to DAs in other districts.

That's my thought, either these items are thought to be illegal and if so then charges are filed and a case is presented. Or it is made clear that these items are not illegal and charges are dropped.

RAD-CDPII
11-02-2007, 5:21 PM
What about the down side, they're found to be legal and the elected idiots in Sacatomato put on more restrictions.

pnkssbtz
11-02-2007, 5:36 PM
While it doesn't get an opinion, charges being dropped in different jurisdictions does set a precedent of sorts and send a message to DAs in other districts.

If it keeps happening, then its not sending a message. So we'll see if they got the message after Matt's case.


You forget, or are making the assumption that the DA's are rational people. They are not. They only care about one thing: their image.

Crazed_SS
11-09-2007, 6:30 AM
That's my thought, either these items are thought to be illegal and if so then charges are filed and a case is presented. Or it is made clear that these items are not illegal and charges are dropped.

Not necessarily. It may just means the prosecution does not believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so they decide not to go to trial. A "not guilty" verdict would be best for setting a precedent IMO.

JALLEN
11-09-2007, 10:09 AM
A precedence is a legal ruling binding, or persuasive, on future cases in lower courts, etc.

It isn't necessary, strictly speaking, to have a precedence set in this. The DA gets a case from the cops, looks it over, decides to issue. The defendant doesn't come in, ask for court appointed attorney, post bail and start bargaining to save his butt, but instead has a sophisticated, very knowledgeable attorney show up, spring him, and start dumping mountains of grief on the prosecutor raising all sorts of doubt and complexities and ambiguities about the prosecution's case that nobody ever thought of. These aren't like 7-11 stick-ups; few DAs have presented a case like this, and (s)he will face all sorts of well-presented, well-reasoned facts and interpretations all tending to establish that no crime has been committed. IOW, it ain't gonna be as much fun as they first thought.

Usually, the DA can count on a defendant trying to plead out on some reduced bogus charge; over 90% of them do. That way, it still counts as a conviction, a success. When the DA has to play all or nothing, they have to think whether the game is worth the candle. It is considered bad form for a Deputy DA to get skunked at trial. It's embarrassing, bad for one's career if it happens too often, and who wants to sail into uncharted waters with doubts about the outcome?

I cite OJ as an example. The DA in Los Angeles was used to going up against overworked public defenders, or defendants without the resources to really make a game of it. They got lazy, sloppy, and arrogant, and in the OJ trial, the kinds of things they routinely get away with they were called on. Who would have dreamt that F. Lee Bailey would have been able to find the tape of Fuhrman? Obviously, Fuhrman didn't, and his arrogance gave the jury the cover to acquit.

In the ordinary gun possession situation, you can either kick the case and dismiss or go to trial and have a judge do it for you. Kicking the case is a bitter pill, but better than a strike out. It isn't precedence in the strict meaning of the term, but it will be remembered, and the next time some cop comes in with a similar case, they still feel the bruises, and will proceed much more cautiously. After a couple of disastrous wastes of time and reputation, they won't do it anymore, at least for the ordinary case. Maybe if they catch someone with a full on Class III short barreled, full auto, silenced, machine gun. Like cats who have jumped on a hot stove, they learn to be more careful, and may no longer jump on any stove if the lesson was burned in enough. These cats talk amongst themselves, and eventually, they know that every time one of these otherwise benign cases comes in, all they can expect is a really tough fight against well-prepared opponents, world of grief, no conviction, and that ain't no fun.

pnkssbtz
11-09-2007, 10:21 AM
It is considered bad form for a Deputy DA to get skunked at trial. It's embarrassing, bad for one's career if it happens too often, and who wants to sail into uncharted waters with doubts about the outcome?

In other words, the DA's image and personal career are more important than justice?


If that is the case, the DA should be fired and his cases reviewed for ethics and standing.



The fact that a DA's track record is more important than an innocent person's freedom speaks volumes of the reality of the justice system.

There IS NO justice. Only money, and public image.

JALLEN
11-09-2007, 12:22 PM
In other words, the DA's image and personal career are more important than justice?


If that is the case, the DA should be fired and his cases reviewed for ethics and standing.



The fact that a DA's track record is more important than an innocent person's freedom speaks volumes of the reality of the justice system.

There IS NO justice. Only money, and public image.

You ask the question, then suppose the answer, then assume that the answer you supposed is correct and come to an erroneous conclusion.

"Justice" is not a concept all attributes of which are universally accepted. One man's justice is another man's outrage. When you or the side you favor win, that is justice; when you lose, it's an outrage, and probably your lawyer's fault!

We lawyers learn soon enough that "evidence" consists of the allegations and claims of your client and supporters, while "allegations" consist of the evidence of the opponent and his supporters.

It is true that the wheels of justice can turn more efficiently and effectively when liberally lubricated with silver ointment. Some lawyers are more learned, more skilled, more experienced, more effective at presenting a clients case. They are worth more, and get paid more for their talent, not unlike A-rod, or Meryl Streep, or Tom Brady. If you give most lawyers a $7 million budget like the Dream Team reputedly had, they can do a much better job than some poor public defender who has 300 cases and a part-time investigator. No doubt about it!

Sometimes "justice" amounts to presenting your clients facts, and evidence and making such arguments as will let him prevail against laws which are poorly thought out, poorly written, or unjust. It might be better "justice" if those laws, regulations, etc. didn't exist or were more skillfully enacted, etc.

Look how long it took us gun nuts to analyze and interpret and figure out all the nuances of Whackyland's gun laws, to the extent we have. This OLL business has been evolving for a couple of years now and still not done. The anti's have their idea of justice; we have ours. Our efforts to attain what we perceive to be justice is made necessary by our failure to win the politics of it.

pnkssbtz
11-09-2007, 1:49 PM
You ask the question, then suppose the answer, then assume that the answer you supposed is correct and come to an erroneous conclusion.I asked a rhetorical question. Then based upon IF the statement in my rhetorical question is TRUE, I made a conclusion of the consequences that would befall such a position (if the statement was true).

My "assumption" to the answer for my rhetorical question is based upon the statements made by you yourself, and others (such as Gene, Bill, etc.):
When the DA has to play all or nothing, they have to think whether the game is worth the candle. It is considered bad form for a Deputy DA to get skunked at trial. It's embarrassing, bad for one's career if it happens too often, and who wants to sail into uncharted waters with doubts about the outcome?
If your summation of the reasons of motivation for a DA to continue a case despite the facts contradicting their position is True, then the "answer" of my rhetorical question is also TRUE.

If the assumption of my rhetorical question is false and thus my conclusion unsupported, then your statement is likewise false.

(Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.)



But to address each part of my post:

"In other words, the DA's image and personal career are more important than justice?"

This is a rhetorical statement which is essentially a summation of what you said in the previous post.


"If that is the case, the DA should be fired and his cases reviewed for ethics and standing."

This is not an answer to my question. This is a statement of consequences that I feel should befall any agent of the government who is charged to act in the best interest of the PUBLIC, but instead acts in the best interest of their career portfolio exclusively and against the innocence of a private citizen.


"The fact that a DA's track record is more important than an innocent person's freedom speaks volumes of the reality of the justice system."

Given that the "justice" I am talking about is not the "petty justice" of self righteousness that you are describing here:
"Justice" is not a concept all attributes of which are universally accepted. One man's justice is another man's outrage. When you or the side you favor win, that is justice; when you lose, it's an outrage, and probably your lawyer's fault! I am speaking from a "justice" of strictly the facts; an Absolute justice of the totality of how the system SHOULD work. But maybe it is naive of me to expect Public Official's to be honest and admit when they are wrong.

If, Then, Else.

IF a DA is more concerned with his career record,

THEN he will pursue issues even when he is flat out wrong so as not to mar his pretty/petty career record,

ELSE he would of dropped the case.



"There IS NO justice. Only money, and public image."

This case is a prime example, If Trutanich & Michael were not so familiar with firearms BWO's case would be much shakier because his attorney would be less skilled at presenting the correct evidence and pointing out the flaws in the false evidence that the DA is alleging.

This requires money.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE money, you get a public defender. Who will urge you to plead to a lesser charge etc.

Just like the 3 guys who went to jail in orange county for purchasing a "switch blade" that was actually just an assisted opener from a knife boutique.

I doubt highly that the DA didn't read the 3rd Paragraph of 653(k) when prosecuting those individuals. Upon reading it would realize that the knives sold there all complied with CA law and were exempt from PC 12020(c).

But hey, the DA now gets 3 more "wins" for his score card and thats all that matters for them, right?



And that is the crux of my post. Personal win record is more important than absolute justice.

bwiese
11-09-2007, 3:01 PM
We all know that Matt was in fact 100% in compliance with CA gun laws.

I hope that when the charges are dropped or he is deemed innocent at trial that this will be another proof that OLL are 100% in compliance with the law and (hopefully?) be the final nail in the coffin on the issue.

Trial court results are not really recorded. A win establishes no formal legal precedence, etc.

It is likely, however, that DA case managers see this (and hear of other dismissals along with phone books of info refuting charges) and "no files" result. I believe a couple may have happened very quietly.

I have it on good authority that LA DA's office will not (unless items egregiously and flagrantly illegal - like true MGs, blatant full-house unreg'd AWs, etc. - and which can be readily prosecuted without any BoF 'assistance') file charges based on any driving action or recommendation from DOJ FD/BoF: they got *way burned* on Lockyer's Pomona gunshow idiocy driven by Iggy, where people were popped for spare HK-9X pistol grip frames (which have no receiver status and are just "parts").




I also hope that Matt sues the crap out of the state after this wins and further proves the DOJ incompetent and malicious in their attempt to bring charges on him.

Um, where was the DOJ in this?

This case was not driven by DOJ. DOJ is likely totally uninvolved (except for someone regurgitating a copy of the AW guide) esp. given their "file and walk away behavior" in the Modesto Sierra Sports/Dave Lake matters, combined with the refusal to file by a NorCal DA against a nice Norcal FFL (which Iggy has a hard-on for and recommended charges against this June).

[If DOJ BoF really really really has a case, it can pursue it thru AGs office regardless of local DA support. Apparently real AGs office can't be bothered, so the BOFfers have to trail chum bait for local junior DAs.

It was local yokels who inappropriately responded to some person wanting to cause drama in Matt's life. That person may well feel some um, strain, in the future - esp if that person turns out to be the one posting other messages that caused Matt further grief in his case recently.