Denise Williams arguing lack of evidence
- Thread starter bigmamanole
- Start date
They appeal all such convictions. They always argue lack of evidence. It’s very, very rarely successful. It won’t be here.
This past Wednesday her conviction for 1st degree murder was reversed on appeal based on lack of evidence.
The court did allow the conspiracy to commit murder stand.
So for now she’s in the midst of a 30 year stretch on that conviction.
The court did allow the conspiracy to commit murder stand.
So for now she’s in the midst of a 30 year stretch on that conviction.
Interesting ruling. I guess the key question now is how much of her 30 year sentence will she actually serve?
I think a state statute mandates that she serve at least 85% of it. If that applies, I guess she’ll do roughly 25.5 years. Life in prison seemed way more appropriate, at least in my eyes.
Was she a wildcat then, or did that come later? You can tell she was/is "adventuresome."
Are you saying the rules are different for women? I guess anything is possible. I know female teachers who b*ng their under-18 students get way more lenient penalties than do male teachers doing the same thing.
We all know the "reason" for that.
You mean like the male really isn’t a “victim,” and that he should covet and enjoy the lucky experience?
Lisa Montgomery Does Not Deserve Special Treatment | National Review
But neither should she be executed. The federal government should stop its execution spree and reinstate a death-penalty moratorium.
www.nationalreview.com
One key sentence: "As it stands, the criminal-justice system shows greater leniency to women at almost every stage in the legal process, from arrests to sentencing."
It is also true, however, that women commit crimes at a MUCH lower rate than men, so it wouldn't be surprising if one could find conscious or subconscious bias (or both), combined with a general hesitation toward sending women to prison.
The article above describes a truly heinous crime now in the news. I don't use the word heinous lightly. Read the article. The story is a combination of evil and tragedy from beginning to end.
Because we agree that the evidence presented at trial could not support her conviction for first-degree murder as a principal, we reverse that conviction.
Finding no merit in her other arguments on appeal, we affirm her conviction and thirty-year sentence for conspiracy to commit murder.
Finding no merit in her other arguments on appeal, we affirm her conviction and thirty-year sentence for conspiracy to commit murder.
Thanks for posting. However, I'm still guessing she actually serves 15 years or less, unless there is the type of 'state mandate' a previous poster mentioned requiring she serve more than 50% of the original sentence (he said 85%). Given the trajectory of mandatory sentences, nationally, I'm guessing that even if there is such a statute, it will be repealed/reduced and she will still likely serve 15 years or less.
I feel safe saying this because the average time served for ACTUAL murder, not conspiracy to commit murder, is:
1st degree murder - 17 years
2nd degree murder - 6 years
Manslaughter - 9 years
Last edited:
She'll do 85% in the State of Florida and that will not change. Florida has no appetite for changing statutes regarding violent crimes period.
Makes sense. Also seems like a serious due process problem if there is an actual or de facto rule that says "oh, yeah, the 85% statute only applies to men....women have a different deal that is not codified anywhere." LOL.
It's not a rule, defacto or otherwise. But it's a reality, nationally.
Other examples of people who, as a group, receive shorter sentences for the same crime: physically attractive people, well-spoken people, people with college degrees, people that engender pity, people that make more money, people with better lawyers, very young offenders, very old offenders, people with a good attitude in court, people from stable families, people who are convincingly contrite, etc, etc.
There is no 'rule' that these people get shorter sentences. They simply do.
You are talking about factors that go into WHETHER someone is convicted in the first place, and what SENTENCE they receive for that conviction. Once those "variables" are confirmed, the rest of it becomes formulaic. You cannot look at prison sentences in Utah or Oklahoma or any other jurisdiction to determine what will happen in Florida. This witch is doing 85% of her 30 year gig.
Obviously, you are not familiar with the parole system. Perhaps you also missed the massive "criminal justice reform" going on.
That is currently correct. I hope it does not change. I believe it is likely to change as soon as Democrats begin taking statewide offices, and larger numbers in the Florida House and Senate.
I don't want to sound like I'm being condescending, I'm seriously not trying to be. I just don't think you understand the State of Florida or Florida's political makeup currently. I don't want to make this political but what you're suggesting will not happen for the foreseeable future barring a seismic shift in the current voting demographics.
Republicans Expand Hold in Florida's Legislature
Thanks for the link. Yes, I do keep up, although I didn't keep up with the recent Florida House races. I was 'distracted' by the massive . . . um, 'events.' And as I said, I hope you are right about Florida's governance. But I know DeSantis defeated Gillum by a scant 0.41% margin just two years ago. And Gillum was a terrible mayor and an obvious left-winger. Gillum was a long way from Lawton Chiles and Charlie Crist (or 'Flipper,' as he is known to his friends). And I can't help noticing what just happened in Georgia.
Is it fair to assume you are not a lawyer? Is it fair to assume you have not been involved in politics for over 30 years? Is it fair to assume you don't teach politics and government classes? Is it fair to assume you don't teach American history classes?
Respectfully, I hope you are not “teaching” anyone. But, unfortunately, I suspect you are. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you are speaking in gross/conceptual generalities that have no application to this real-life specific situation. That is classic academia!! LOL.
I'm not teaching a class here. I'm posting on a message board. And you'll notice the last two posts you responded to here had only facts and no "gross/conceptual realties." Of course. And I've spent most of my long career outside of "academia." LOL.
Since you didn't answer any of my questions to you, I "suspect" your answer to them all is "no." Insulting someone is the sign of a lazy mind and weak arguments. That is classic stupid!! LOL. (Helping you by speaking a language more similar to the one you are used to.)
I will do us both a favor by not responding to any more of your posts.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Softball FSU softball picks up another run-rule win vs. UNC- Latest: Seminoles70
-
-
-