Submitted by atwork925 t3_y2xmgs in philadelphia
GreenAnder t1_is66140 wrote
Just to make sure we're keeping score here.
- DA charges with various charges including murder of an unborn child. Judge tosses most serious charges.
- DA sets bail at 1 mil. Judge sets bail at 170k.
- Convicted in August, still on the streets in October.
- Despite being a convict he is allowed, while out on bail, to purchase ammo from a gun shop in South Philly.
I've said a few times on here that my main issue with the DA is that the office is disorganized and bleeding talent, but this perfectly illustrates the bigger issue happening in this city.
If a crime is committed, the witness might not come forward. If they do come forward, the cops might not get a warrant. If they get a warrant, they might not get an arrest. If they get an arrest, they might not get charged. If they get charged, they might not be convicted. If they get convicted, the judge might reduce their bail.
Every single level of this city's criminal justice system is broken, but more often then not it's judges sending these assholes back onto the streets. It doesn't get nearly enough coverage, but most of the time some dude who should be in jail kills someone it's a judge that put them back on the street, not the DA.
MrGulo-gulo t1_is6dw3c wrote
>Judge sets bail at 170k
Do we know why?
GreenAnder t1_is6ek90 wrote
I'll confess I haven't looked into that, but the judges in the city routinely balk at high bail.
For some background, the DA does support no cash bail but we do not have it currently implemented in this city. That system isn't what a lot of people think it is, basically everyone is either a danger to society/flight risk or they're not. In a no cash bail system you let the people who should be free on bail out and keep the ones who are dangerous in. Right now a mass murderer could get out on bail if they had enough money, while some guy who got arrested for having too many unpaid parking tickets can't.
Like I said, we don't have it in this city. What the DA often does is try to set the maximum legal amount they can if they don't believe someone should be allowed to go free. That's what happened here. The judges routinely deny those requests and set it to something that can be paid, it happens all the time. Last year there was a guy out on bail who killed that Temple kid? Krasner took a lot of heat for that but it was the same exact situation, they tried to set bail at 1 mil and the judge reduced it twice.
MrGulo-gulo t1_is6j1oj wrote
If one good thing can come of this I hope that maybe these judges that hold this position have their minds changed. This man clearly should not have been able to walk around.
lordredsnake t1_is8r4wm wrote
u/GreenAnder 's comment is a good explanation of the machinations behind that outcome. But on a practical level, the judge set it at 170k because people in PA have a right to bail except for in the case of capital crimes (his convictions were not) and/or they pose an immediate threat to public safety. The latter seems clear with 20/20 hindsight, but at the time he was convicted we didn't have Precogs proving that he was going to go out and shoot up a school. Million dollar bail can be argued as denial of bail (because it's meant to be) and a violation of civil rights.
This judge attempted to balance the constitutional right to bail with risk to public safety and the judge judged wrongly here.
GreenAnder t1_isadvbn wrote
My general point is that people think this is all the DA when it isn't, but this is also a major area of complaint with Krasner. It would be very easy for him to get on TV and explain this, but he doesn't. It's not the guys policies that are the problem, it's him and his ability to get along with people and explain things to the public.
lordredsnake t1_isaznsy wrote
Agreed 100%. His retail politics are atrocious and it undermines his stated mission.
PhillyPanda t1_is6gdu6 wrote
> Judge tosses most serious charges.
The judge didn’t “toss the charges,” he was found not guilty of the charges, which means the prosecution didn’t meet their burden of proof
GreenAnder t1_isae4vm wrote
I'm not sure how "man hits woman with car, woman's unborn child dies" is something that needs to clear a burden of proof. The judge found the man not responsible for the death, it's not arguable that his actions lead to the death of her unborn child. Things that are facts in this case.
- The man was racing
- He was drunk
- He crashed his car
- The woman lost her child
PhillyPanda t1_isasi6i wrote
>I'm not sure how "man hits woman with car, woman's unborn child dies" is something that needs to clear a burden of proof.
That’s… very concerning. All criminal accusations need to clear a burden of proof. The more extreme they are, the more important meeting that burden of proof is.
murder in the third degree is usually thought to require an element of malice which is something more than negligence/recklessness. An argument can certainly be made for malice but it has to be made. For many car accidents that kill another, involuntary manslaughter is the charge that you can get to stick. You might remember a judge actually initially dropped third degree murder charges for the woman who killed two police officers while drunk. They were reinstated but the prosecution will need to prove she did act with malice, it isn’t a given or even all that likely.
There is no charge of involuntarily manslaughter to an unborn child so it wasn’t an option for a charge. If the woman had died, I’m sure we’d see involuntary manslaughter, homicide by vehicle while DUI, and homicide by vehicle charges but there are only a few options to charge under for killing an unborn baby.
“Tossing the charges” is a phrase used for dismissing charges as the judge did in the cop killing dui at first, not when they are actually deliberated and decided on.
GreenAnder t1_isbdbj3 wrote
If all that is true then there is no definition under the law that would have stuck to this guy, your claim that the DA didn't meet the burden of proof is technically true but functionally meaningless. He fell through a loophole in PA law, they couldn't even have charged him with aggravated assault of an unborn child since he had no way of knowing the woman was pregnant.
All that taken into account he wasn't 'innocent', he just wasn't guilty of the charges because PA doesn't have a statute that fits the crime he committed. That was likely the reasoning behind the higher than normal bail amount.
PhillyPanda t1_isbe9m8 wrote
Except you can get third degree murder charges to stick for what he did (driving drunk at high speeds), it does happen. Was probably more likely if he’d chosen a jury trial bc of how sympathetic the jury would be. A bench trial was probably a strategic move on the part of the defense as the judge is more likely to stick to the letter of the law vs sympathy. It was a reach of a charge but it was possible, I wouldn’t say the judge tossed the charges, I also wouldn’t say the prosecution was incompetent.
There should be an involuntary manslaughter charge for unborn children. There’s a voluntary manslaughter charge. Seems like a bad oversight. There should be a slam dunk charge just like there is for born people.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments