Cops Shot Far Rockaway Teen 11 Times
Video: New School Students, Comrades Toss Trash Pre-Arrest
Schumer: "Real Momentum" For Health Care Reform Now
NYC Wants Death Penalty In Terror Trials, Germany Doesn't
Prosecutor: D Train Murderer Was Unprovoked
Yesterday, juries in two separate cop killing cases came back with news that left the victims' families upset: Lee Woods, on trial for killing police officer Russel Timoshenko during a traffic stop, was granted a mistrial because one juror was ill while Lillo Brancato Jr., on trial for killing off-duty police officer Daniel Enchautegui, was found not guilty of murder.
According to the NY Times, the jurors in Woods' case "had decided to convict Mr. Woods of weapons possession, but were still divided on the most serious charges: aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder." One juror explained that while most wanted to convict him of murder, there were some holdouts, including the juror who reportedly had heart palpitations, were undecided.
Woods was being tried at the same time as the two other people in the car—Dexter Bostic, who was found guilty of murder, and Robert Ellis, who was acquitted. One issue may have been the fact that there was one driver and two shooters in the situation, and the jury seemed to believe he was the driver. Another juror said, "I don’t have a sense of whether he was guilty or not." But Timoshenko's mother was upset, saying, "There's no justice in this count. It's so obvious, I don't know how much more evidence you need."
In Brancato's case, jurors felt the police work was shoddy. One juror told the Post, "A lot of the police investigation was simply sloppy. It was sloppy police work." He and another juror "could not believe that two teams of four detectives did not take notes when they interviewed Brancato in the hospital." Brancato was found guilty of attempted burglary.
Enchautegui's sister Yolando Rosa expressed her dismay, "I'm disappointed, I'm disappointed. What message is this sending out to the New York City police officers today?" Brancato faces a sentence of 3 1/2 to 15 years for the burglary conviction. Since he has been in jail for the past three years, his lawyer is asking for time served, but the prosecutor says "she will ask for the max."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I must make a note to myself to contact the local chapter of the NRA and find out what is the best weapon to carry when I go out on the streets. Since it appears you can shoot anyone you want and find some dead dumb fuck jury to acquit you because they can't figure what is legally right and what is wrong.
In fact I'm going to see if they make an all plastic firearm and ammo that I can just go into a courtroom and take these miserable shit heads out of their misery.
@Snoopy—there was a line in the NY Times article about the jury in the Woods/Timoshenko case. Apparently the jurors were unclear about the charges and the charges' wording. Which is understandable, because it's legal jargon but it's still worrying.
Can any lawyers explain how defendants are allowed to decide whether they want to continue with an alternate juror? I didn't realize that before.
"One issue may have been the fact that there was one driver and two shooters in the situation," Actually you jerks there were two drivers and an innocent passenger. Does that make you feel better?
seems: you can't just shoot anyone. you have to shoot someone who doesn't deserve it. maybe an innocent. then you will get off easy. if you shoot a cop, hell, they might even give you a little christmas gift.
if a cop shoots a lowlife, then watch out!!! news at ten! violent cop!! probably suspect!!! racism!! etc etc!!! forget the trial, just award the lowlife a million dollars for wasting his time when he could be robbing your granny.
Apparently the jurors were unclear about the charges and the charges' wording. Which is understandable, because it's legal jargon but it's still worrying.
I was on a jury two years ago and we didn't understand a lot of the stuff that was said, but we came out a zillion times over to get the judge to reexplain it to us. It was a huge help. Apparently these jurors were just retarded, literally.
I read similar statements from the Ellis jury - they said afterwards they didn't understand some of the charges. WTF? That's what the judges charge to the jury is for. Keep asking til you get it. I guess this is what it means by having a jury of your peers. Idiots get idiots.
In the Brancato case, I hate to say it, but from what I read in the papers, the jury may have had no choice. The prosecution needed to prove that he was aware that his buddy had a gun, which is a tough thing to prove.
This news report says that jurors thought the police work in the cop shooting involving that germ Brancato was sloppy, in part because jurors found it hard to believe detectives took no notes when they questioned Brancato in a hospital. I believe it is felt by police that if notes are taken they can be attacked on cross examination and possibly mistakes and inconsistencies can be brought to light that makes the cop witness look incompetent or sloppy. If there are no notes that issue is taken off the table. So the police have a choice. Take no notes and appear incompetent to the jury, or take notes and be cross examined on them and prove the incompetence.
But what ever happened to law of felony-murder, a law which stated that each and every participant in a felony is guilty of felony-murder if someone is killed during the commission of the underlying felony? It should not matter if Brancato knew or didn't know his felony (burglary) accomplice had a gun. He knew he was committing a felony. And a brave police officer was killed during the commission of that felony.
if only more white people were on juries and stopped trying to shirk their duties. that's one reason why a manhattan jury would be different.
though you'll still find hold outs, the days of juries believing whatever the NYPD says are over.
Brancatto was convicted of ATTEMPTED burglary. If he was convicted of burglary he would have been automatically convicted of the felony murder.
All those guys in the car were guilty, I don't care what any jury thinks. Who cares who was driving the stolen car or which two actually fired the guns? They're all clearly guilty.
One of the biggest problems with the jury system is that mostly meek and stupid people wind up being selected for juries, especially in criminal cases. If you've ever been called to criminal court (I have, twice) and actually listened to the questions the judge asks the jury pool (I did) you practically HAVE to say something that winds up disqualifying you, even if that's not your intention going in (happened to me twice). So the meek people who are afraid to speak up or the stupid people who don't understand the questions in the first place get through.