NationStates Jolt Archive

What's with these judges? This guy was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and the jury recommended a 30 year sentence but the judge gave him a suspended sentence. We need to get rid of judges like this.

http://ap.ardmoreite.com/pstories/state/ok/20060311/3704908.shtml

Family outraged over judge's sentence in rape case
The Associated Press

PAWNEE, Okla. — A judge said he believes "a miscarriage of justice had occurred" in the conviction of a former Pawnee city official for the rape of a 13-year-old girl and went against a jury-recommended 30 year prison term and suspended the sentence instead.

The ruling sparked outrage from the victim's family, who yelled at District Judge Jefferson Sellers before fleeing the courtroom Friday.

"You're kidding me. Look at my daughter," the girl's mother yelled when Sellers ordered the release of former Pawnee Water Department head Gregory Lynn Bryant, 38, who had been jailed nearly four months since he was convicted in November of raping the girl in March 2004.

Outside the courthouse, the girl's older sister vomited on the lawn and the victim continuously sobbed. Their mother said she felt that her daughter had been raped again.

The girl's father expressed outrage, and her grandmother called the sentence "totally, absolutely unbelievable."

In suspending the sentence, Sellers said in court that the jury's verdict had logical inconsistencies, which he did not list.

"I am powerless to grant a new trial on my own" since it had not been sought by the defense, Sellers said.

Sellers said he thought he had erred in failing to grant a trial continuance sought by the defense, which wanted to have the nurse who performed the sexual assault examination on the girl testify regarding the results.

Sellers said after court recessed that he thought it would be inappropriate for him to explain outside the courtroom the basis for his decision.

As part of the suspended sentence, Sellers ordered Bryant to follow a sex-offender treatment program including polygraph examinations, pay for any mental health treatment for the victim, have no contact with the victim or her family and have no unsupervised contact with anyone younger than 18.

Bryant was the superintendent of the Pawnee Water Department, where he worked from Jan. 29, 2002, until he was fired Nov. 24, 2004, two days after he was ordered to stand trial on the rape charge.

Both belong to the same pedofile pr0n Internet ring? :p

That's what's wrong with the world. If I was that judge, I would've doubled it.

the jury's verdict had logical inconsistencies, which he did not list.

I'm curious to know what the "logical inconsistencies" were. Without knowing I don't think I could possibly comment.

I'm curious to know what the "logical inconsistencies" were. Without knowing I don't think I could possibly comment.
My question is how he would know anything about possible logical inconsistencies since he couldn't have been in on the jury's deliberations and they could only have returned verdicts of guilty, not guilty, and hung. But of course he won't explain his actions, that would be too logical.

Judges can't just pass sentences based on their personal feelings. He probably had a good reason.

Judges can't just pass sentences based on their personal feelings.

They are not suposed to but they can and have done so.

I'm curious as to what these inconsistencies are too, but it seems like the Judge has over stepped his boundaries anyway. He thinks there should be a retrial, but the defense hasn't asked for it so he's given the lowest possible sentence to try and negate the conviction.

However, the Jury has no say in sentencing, only in determining the defendent's guilt or innocence. And that the Judge has total control over the sentence given out. He must really believe there's been a miscarridge of justice to do this, it's seemingly putting his career on the line.

They are not suposed to but they can and have done so.
Well then the judge has just done "what he is supposed to do" here.

I would like to see a paedophile go to jail for 30 years, but I have the luxury of not having to base that opinion on the law. He doesn't. He has to abide by the law to the letter, flaws and all.

One is inclined to say "pawnee'd", but who and whom I dare not venture...

Now, let's not jump to conclusions. Does anyone know WHY the judge ordered the sentence suspended upon the condition of etc.? Was this a case of statutory rape? Was the evidence bad?

I'd rather trust in the opinion of a judge, who knows the law and is more impartial then any jury then some inflammatory article.

Something isn't being said here.

Something isn't being said here.
Agreed, until we know why the judge decided to suspend the sentence we can't say one way or the other. Remember that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and if the judge thinks that the jury was acting out of emotion and a desire for revenge instead of logically following the evidence presented then he's obligated not to send to jail someone who could very probably be innocent.

Now, let's not jump to conclusions. Does anyone know WHY the judge ordered the sentence suspended upon the condition of etc.? Was this a case of statutory rape? Was the evidence bad?

I'd rather trust in the opinion of a judge, who knows the law and is more impartial then any jury then some inflammatory article.

Something isn't being said here.

Precisely. This may be one of those cases indicative of how flawed a jury system is - laypeople influenced by emotions rather than facts or merits of a case. If such was the case here, the judge was probably correct in setting aside the jury's recommendation. And it is just what that is - a recommendation.

What's with these judges? This guy was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and the jury recommended a 30 year sentence but the judge gave him a suspended sentence. We need to get rid of judges like this.
I think this more proves why we should get rid of juries, not judges. Personally I'd more put my faith in what a qualified lawyer with 30-odd years legal experience has to say than a bunch of yokels dragged in to make up a jury. Judges are not always right, but I feel they'd be right more often than 12 average joes when it comes to making decisons based on the law.

However, the Jury has no say in sentencing, only in determining the defendent's guilt or innocence. And that the Judge has total control over the sentence given out.

Wrong and right. The person had been found guilt in November. This was the sentencing phase of the trial in which the jury decides on a recommended sentence. Unfortunately, the jury can only make a recommendation but the judge does not have to follow those recommendations. The only cases where the judge has no say in the sentence is in cases where there is a mandatory minimum sentence.

Agreed, until we know why the judge decided to suspend the sentence we can't say one way or the other. Remember that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and if the judge thinks that the jury was acting out of emotion and a desire for revenge instead of logically following the evidence presented then he's obligated not to send to jail someone who could very probably be innocent.

The person had already been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. This was the sentencing phase of the trial. If there was any question about the verdict, that would be decided by an appeal, not the judge at sentencing.

I think this more proves why we should get rid of juries, not judges. Personally I'd more put my faith in what a qualified lawyer with 30-odd years legal experience has to say than a bunch of yokels dragged in to make up a jury. Judges are not always right, but I feel they'd be right more often than 12 average joes when it comes to making decisons based on the law.

People who feel as you do have the right to a judge only trial. You can waive your right to a trial by jury and go with judge only.

"I am powerless to grant a new trial on my own" since it had not been sought by the defense, Sellers said.

Sellers said he thought he had erred in failing to grant a trial continuance sought by the defense, which wanted to have the nurse who performed the sexual assault examination on the girl testify regarding the results.
Sounds to me like he realised the defence (and himself) didn't do a good enough job during the original trial and missed vital information which could have proven the guy innocent. But because there was no re-trial and he was formally found guilty, the suspended sentence was the only way the judge could go in letting the guy off.

People who feel as you do have the right to a judge only trial. You can waive your right to a trial by jury and go with judge only.
Should never come to that, as I've hid all the bodies really thoroughly.

However, the Jury has no say in sentencing, only in determining the defendent's guilt or innocence. And that the Judge has total control over the sentence given out. He must really believe there's been a miscarridge of justice to do this, it's seemingly putting his career on the line.

In the US the Jury's leverage depends on the paticular state laws as does the judges control over sentencing. It is not uniform and varies widely.
This is a case which is taylor made for those who favor madatory minimum sentencing and highlights a recent rash of judicial misconduct that happens to coincide with a long overdue trend to root out pedophile's where ever they may have entrenched themselves, including the bench. There have been a number of recent cases where long time judges have suddenly set free self admitted child molesters, knowing full well that it would bring their carreers to an abrupt end, such as in the case of Vermont's Judge Cashman, and several others. This is merely a matter of the rats scattering before they are caught and a few taking a parting shot before they go.

I think this more proves why we should get rid of juries, not judges. Personally I'd more put my faith in what a qualified lawyer with 30-odd years legal experience has to say than a bunch of yokels dragged in to make up a jury. Judges are not always right, but I feel they'd be right more often than 12 average joes when it comes to making decisons based on the law.

It is good to see that you are not a carreer criminal, as you would not have the same opinion if you were.
As far as giving Judges and Lawyers even more power? I'd sure hope you would reconcider that opinion, as they have proven time and time again to be the lion's share of the ills in this nation. If I had my preference, there would be a law against lawyers even being eligible to become a judge for the next 20 years or so, simply so we could get some credibility back into the system. I'd also end with all haste the practice of lifetime appointments, or politicial appointments and opt instead to make them all elected positions. Right after that I'd chop their pensions to the same social security alotment that those they preside over are able to obtain.

The person had already been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. This was the sentencing phase of the trial. If there was any question about the verdict, that would be decided by an appeal, not the judge at sentencing.
No. Appeals courts are not triers of fact. They can not overturn a juries opinion as to guilt, only an error in the application of law by a judge.

What's with these judges? This guy was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and the jury recommended a 30 year sentence but the judge gave him a suspended sentence. We need to get rid of judges like this.

Firstly, this entire OP is an emotional argument. We are not aware of the reasons for this. Secondly the daughter and families feelings are irrelvent to the matter of justice. The chances are they would have felt the same had the defendent actually not been guilty, most people in that situation simply want to feel that justice has been done. Whether or not it is is a diffrent matter.

No. Appeals courts are not triers of fact. They can not overturn a juries opinion as to guilt, only an error in the application of law by a judge.

Well they can overturn the verdict if it was reached by improprer use of evidence.

Well they can overturn the verdict if it was reached by improprer use of evidence.
Which isn't trying fact. A appeals court can not overturn a jury's verdict unless it is so clearly tainted by some outside fact AND in many cases the lawyer for the defense brought it up during the trial itself.

No. Appeals courts are not triers of fact. They can not overturn a juries opinion as to guilt, only an error in the application of law by a judge.

Correct, my error.

"Jury said 30 years for rape. Judge suspends sentence."

Oaklahoma? I'd say it's likely that some night not too far in the future, some of the "good ole boys" will get together and "disappear" this perp. :D

"Jury said 30 years for rape. Judge suspends sentence."

Oaklahoma? I'd say it's likely that some night not too far in the future, some of the "good ole boys" will get together and "disappear" this perp. :D
yay linchmobs! :rolleyes:

yay linchmobs! :rolleyes:
Yeah, aren't people in masses just great. Somehow, they manage to display the least amount of intelligence humanly possible. Hitler was right in this regard.

"Jury said 30 years for rape. Judge suspends sentence."

Oaklahoma? I'd say it's likely that some night not too far in the future, some of the "good ole boys" will get together and "disappear" this perp. :D

I'd like to read that disposition, but from most I have seen from these sorts of cases, the guy has already gotten himself a sponsor in Mecca (California), and is preparing to beat feet before the next weekend after spring break falls.

what's wrong with the world.We should have mandatory death Penalty for Rape.

We should have mandatory death Penalty for Rape.

Why?

Why?because rape is as horrible as murder.

of course i am talking about real rape.

We should have mandatory death Penalty for Rape.

We used to, but some court decided it was un-constitunal because it was cruel and unusual punishment. :(

What's with these judges? This guy was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and the jury recommended a 30 year sentence but the judge gave him a suspended sentence. We need to get rid of judges like this.

It's been pointed out that just about every facet of American life has been politicized - Republican school trustees, Democratic Chiefs of Police, etc. - so, what then? Aren't judges politicized, too? Can't you just vote out an unpopular judge?

:rolleyes:

It's been pointed out that just about every facet of American life has been politicized - Republican school trustees, Democratic Chiefs of Police, etc. - so, what then? Aren't judges politicized, too? Can't you just vote out an unpopular judge?

:rolleyes:

It depends. In some jurisdictions, judges are elected and can be recalled or voted out of office at the next election. In other jurisdictions, judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from office by impeachment by the legislators.

Judges can't just pass sentences based on their personal feelings. He probably had a good reason.

If only that was possible here. They have and continue to do so. Even now the "moralists" are arguing a judge should be able use his Religious convictions in matters.

Well we would have to read the disposition to see what happened.

The only thing I can figure:

1) The perp has photos of the judge and a little boy. (that is a joke for the sacrastically impaired).
2) The case wasn't proved and the jury went overboard.

Need more detail then a news blurb.....

I think this more proves why we should get rid of juries, not judges. Personally I'd more put my faith in what a qualified lawyer with 30-odd years legal experience has to say than a bunch of yokels dragged in to make up a jury. Judges are not always right, but I feel they'd be right more often than 12 average joes when it comes to making decisons based on the law.

I agree with much of what you and Fass said here, and I'm opposed to the jury-system as it works today, but I wouldn't remove the layperson-element from the courts completely. It does serve a purpose.

because rape is as horrible as murder.

of course i am talking about real rape.
Oooo-kay then... And what, pray tell, is a "fake rape" in this context?

I wholeheartedly disagree in sentencing someone to 30 years in prison for raping a 13-year-old!

Firstly, this entire OP is an emotional argument. We are not aware of the reasons for this. Secondly the daughter and families feelings are irrelvent to the matter of justice. The chances are they would have felt the same had the defendent actually not been guilty, most people in that situation simply want to feel that justice has been done. Whether or not it is is a diffrent matter.

I feel so... in agreeance. :eek:

It's very clear to me that the Defence Counsel failed at some point here. It's possible for a Judge, in most areas at least, to set aside a Jury Verdict - though, in most places, only if the defense makes a motion to do so.

I have a nasty hunch that the Defense failed to make a motion they should have...

because rape is as horrible as murder.

of course i am talking about real rape.

What about miscariages of justice?

We should have mandatory death Penalty for Rape.
I think it should be a mandatory life servitude penalty. If you're going to go through all the trouble of raising a person, you might as well get something out of them. Killing them is just a waste.

Assumptions about the judge being a pedophile are bull. Why? Because, if he was, the best way to hide it would be sentencing peds to long times, or death, or whatever. It's just as easy, and, likely, just as idiotic, to think that he was a neocon that believes the woman "deserves" to be raped if she "acts imorally" or some idiocy to that effect, and, thus, it wasn't the rapist's fault, and so on and so forth.

That being said, we have no idea what the case was. If the judge found that the jury acted out of emotion in an emotionally-charged case, or that the defense was incompetent, it would make sense that he does that: He's forcing the FAMILY (not the Defense, which, in this scenario, is incompetent) to request another trial, thereby passing the ball to another judge with a competent defender this time.

Or the rapist may be an acquaintance of someone with power over the judge. It all depends. I can't tell what his reasons were, wether they were good or bad. The article is emotionally charged as well, so it won't tell the whole story either. We'd need to check the records of the trial. If the trial held water and the defense, as well as the jury, was competent, we'd have to start investigating the judge's motivations, which would probably be bad ones (blackmail, bribery, threats come to mind) in case the trial was fair.

I think it should be a mandatory life servitude penalty. If you're going to go through all the trouble of raising a person, you might as well get something out of them. Killing them is just a waste.get something like what?

What about miscariages of justice?I don't know..
what do you suggest we do about that?

get something like what?

I think he means something to the effect of work. Collecting roadkill and garbage, for instance.

Oooo-kay then... And what, pray tell, is a "fake rape" in this context?what context?

I think he means something to the effect of work. Collecting roadkill and garbage, for instance.If he is worried about his taxes.. (about money)

I would say that he is beating a dead Horse (the case was already made here that.. Life-in-Prison for a rapist is more expensive than the needle..and some would say its more humane too)

I wholeheartedly disagree in sentencing someone to 30 years in prison for raping a 13-year-old!
Why not? It's a very serious crime.

what context?
This thread. What did you mean when you used the phrase "fake rape"?

This thread. What did you mean when you used the phrase "fake rape"?I don't think I used the phrase "fake rape"

more likely I used the words "real rape".

The rape issue has multiple contexts.. The Legal Context, the moral context, the Geographical context, etc.

Well you're not getting any outrage from me. He used his discresion with sentancing to make up for what he felt to be a miscarriage of justice. I would have done the same thing if I believed an innocent man was convicted, or if there was a compelling reason why the suggested sentance was excessive.

Plus I'm not sure a 30 year sentance would serve any purpose. As it stands this guy's going to therapy for sex offenders, he's not to go near the victim or potential victims, and he's to pay for however much therapy the victim needs. There might not be a vengeful prison sentance attached, but most of the bases are covered. I'd have added an assload of community service and a tracking anklebracelet though.

Well then the judge has just done "what he is supposed to do" here.

I would like to see a paedophile go to jail for 30 years, but I have the luxury of not having to base that opinion on the law. He doesn't. He has to abide by the law to the letter, flaws and all.

Someone's probably already said it, but the law allows a long sentence for rape doesn't it?

Rape is a terrible, traumatic crime with long-lasting effects, even making people suicidal, it's so devastating. Whatever his personal feelings, whatever the law says, the judge could and should have given a long sentence, and this would easily be in line with the law, whatever his personal feelings were - just because a judge may have personal feelings about a case, that doesn't mean that he can't base the sentence on his personal feelings if it is within the limits of the law, and it doesn't mean that if his personal feelings coincide with what sentence he should give by law, that the sentence was based on personal feelings.

And the jury convicted him. After a jury, the people who he has been tried by, have convicted him, the judge has NO RIGHT, legal or otherwise, to decide that the jury are wrong based on his own personal feelings. Kroisistan, you'd make a cr*p judge.

And giving such a low sentence, as if it wasn't obvious from the reaction, is adding further injury to the victim, which of course makes it harder to get over, especially after the traumatic courtroom ordeal. I'd have given the sicko life - with a minimum term of 300 years. The bastard would never get out.

sounds like what happened in the God Father.