Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[princessdi]

Gregory, thanks for your explanation.  I do understand that a jury can find him "not guilty", but I just believe at this point, he is guilty.  ITA agree with your post. 

Having said that, won't that guilty plea be difficult to retract?

[Gregory]

No, the guilty plea is easily withdrawn.

The guilty plea was made in response to a profer of a plea deal.  The judge had the authority to reject the plea deal and did.  At that point, the judge had to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.

Now the options are:  1) Reach a new plea deal that the judge will accept.  2) Go to trial and take your chance.  3) Dismisss the charges which can be done but as there was a Grand Jury inditement, as I understand it, will not be done without a lot of thougt.

Reading between the lines, I do not believe the Commonwealth Attorney wants to go to trial.  So, I believe that there will be an attempt to reach a new plea deal.  Will it suceed?  I have no idea.

[Alex L. Walker]

I have been told that the case will go before the grand jury on December 21st and another status hearing on the 22nd.

[princessdi]

Ok gotcha!  I can see because they were connected that once the please was rejected, they have to also disallow the guilty please tied to it.  However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?

No, the guilty plea is easily withdrawn.

The guilty plea was made in response to a profer of a plea deal.  The judge had the authority to reject the plea deal and did.  At that point, the judge had to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.

Now the options are:  1) Reach a new plea deal that the judge will accept.  2) Go to trial and take your chance.  3) Dismisss the charges which can be done but as there was a Grand Jury inditement, as I understand it, will not be done without a lot of thougt.

Reading between the lines, I do not believe the Commonwealth Attorney wants to go to trial.  So, I believe that there will be an attempt to reach a new plea deal.  Will it suceed?  I have no idea.

[Gregory]

"However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?"

The law is concerned with the statute.  Once TS has ben allowed to withdraw his guilty plea it is wiped out.  It does not exist any more in the eyes of the law.  As far as the law is concerned, his status has reverted to the same as it was prior to his guilty plea.  IOW, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal trial or if he again pleads guilty in a plea deal that is accepted by a judge.

We (I am) are only saying that he is not guilty from the standpoint of the law.

His "admision of guilt" can never be used against him in a court of law.  In the eyes of the statute it simply does not exist any more.

[Johann]

Last 24 hours here:

"Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time." ´- John Keats

[princessdi]

Ok Understood, but very weird.  As far as the "law" is concerned he is back to "innocent until proven guilty, but in actuality he is admittedly guilty.   Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm..........

I just want to say that apologize to anyone who was offended by my initial post.  I figure it must have been pretty bad when folk start hinting that I leave and go back to BSDA............

"However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?"

The law is concerned with the statute.  Once TS has ben allowed to withdraw his guilty plea it is wiped out.  It does not exist any more in the eyes of the law.  As far as the law is concerned, his status has reverted to the same as it was prior to his guilty plea.  IOW, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal trial or if he again pleads guilty in a plea deal that is accepted by a judge.

We (I am) are only saying that he is not guilty from the standpoint of the law.

His "admision of guilt" can never be used against him in a court of law.  In the eyes of the statute it simply does not exist any more.

[Bob Pickle]

So Gregory, if someone called Tommy an admitted pedophile now and Tommy sued for defamation, could the defense use his admission in his guilty plea or not?

[mrst53]

Now that's really confusing

[Gregory]

Bob:  I beleive that your question has some technical aspects to it that are beyond my competance to answer.

[Wendall]

Depends on where the claim is brought. ie. In California a withdrawn plea is admissible. Federal court a withdrawn plea is not admissible. Some states the withdrawn plea is admissible and other states it is not admissible. Just the way it is.
In a defamation claim, truth is a defense. In your case, the defense would produce evidence that TS is a pedophile by calling witnesses that would have personal experience of that fact = truth that he is pedophile which would defeat the defamation claim. Further, another type of witness would be a person who heard TS admit he was a pedophile (must be outside of court) ie.  a family member he might have told. In addition, if the defense took a deposition of TS and he denied he was a pedophile you could admit the deposition against him as impeachment and substantive evidence that he is as long as he testified on the stand by denying that he was a pedophile.
Lastly, you do not need to have the plea agreement to be admissible to defeat a defamation claim.
The reasoning behind some jurisdictions not admitting the plea agreements is some people will admit to a crime they did not commit because they are scared of being sentenced for a long time.

[Johann]

What will the plea be day after tomorrow?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?"

The law is concerned with the statute.  Once TS has ben allowed to withdraw his guilty plea it is wiped out.  It does not exist any more in the eyes of the law.  As far as the law is concerned, his status has reverted to the same as it was prior to his guilty plea.  IOW, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal trial or if he again pleads guilty in a plea deal that is accepted by a judge.

We (I am) are only saying that he is not guilty from the standpoint of the law.

His "admision of guilt" can never be used against him in a court of law.  In the eyes of the statute it simply does not exist any more.

And here, Mr Gregory, I must disagree...it is stricken as to any criminal action, however, if properly introduced, it can be used in a civil trial. Not easy, but it can be selectively introduced and allowed in the record...and yes the Jury can consider it in the proper context and with proper limitations.

There is no question one wouild prefer a cobviction on the record but statutes of limitations can also be factors here.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

What will the plea be day after tomorrow?

"NOT GUILTY!!!"

But, not far ahead there will be a Jury of HIS peers and I predict they will find him "GUILTY"...no yankee lawyer from the people's republic of Massachusetts can save a Southern Preacher and pedophile from his dues!!!

Notice, I have deliberately left out "alleged" as he has plead...a plea is a plea!!! This predator will get a second chance but I would not want to be on the other end of this failed plea in Virginia with a yankee lawyer from the peoples republic of Massachusetts, the only state in the union to void the concept of TEA in a state that threw TEA into the Chesapeake!!!

Assigned counsel has a better chance, but it better be Gerry Spence!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter