Thursday, January 15, 2009

First federal not guilty of the year?

Bill Matthewman got one yesterday before Judge Marra in a felon in possession case. First not guilty of the year in the District?

UPDATED -- Nope, Matthewman doesn't get the honors. The first NG of the year goes to Tim Day from the Federal Defender's Office before Judge Cohn.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

If so, how many nonplead guilties?

Anonymous said...

Who was the prosecutor?

Commodore said...

What has that got to do with anything?

Anonymous said...

The 1st not guilty verdict of the year belongs to:


Superstar lawyer and AFPD Tim Day in U.S. v. Grant. A felon in possession case before Judge Cohn.

Word.

Anonymous said...

This would mean 2 separate not guily verdicts in 2 separate federal criminal cases in the Broward Federal Courthouse within the first two weeks of January, 2009. One by Matthewman and one by Day. Not bad at all.

Bill Matthewman said...

I demand a recount and the appointment of an independent auditor to determine which not guilty verdict came first. I will have a team of lawyers on this. That Tim Day is always trying to pull a fast one.

(Congrats Tim).

Anonymous said...

Congratulationas to both of you. You are great attorneys who deserve a drink.

Anonymous said...

Is it really such a cause for celebration that these two defendants were acquitted? I don't know anything about the cases, an so I have no personal opinion about the cases or the results. I would simply like to know whether the happy tone of these posts is based on a review of the facts of the two cases or are the posters simply happy any time someone is acquitted, regardless of the circumstances? Were you also happy when those 4 LAPD officers were acquitted in state court in Simi Valley despite a videotape of them beating Rodney King? Were you buying drinks and toasting the defense attorneys who got acquittals from their all-white jury for the cops who beat Arthur McDuffie to death, leading to the riots that burned down big chunks of Miami? Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

The federal system is so unfair, that anytime there is an acquttal, the defendant must actually be innocent, not just not guilty. You are the same person who does not question the testimony of your lying agent, even when you know in your heart he is not truthful. Do you celebrate when you Win?

Anonymous said...

Well 11:37, do prosecutors celebrate when they get a conviction? Of course they do. What about when innocent defendants are released from death row or from life sentences after having been convicted on false or misleading evidence, do they celebrate then? The fact of the matter is that this is an adversarial system, and when two defendants are acquitted in federal court in two separate cases in the first two weeks of the year, that means the system is working and the defense lawyers are doing their job. Or would you just rather have lots and lots of guilty pleas?

Anonymous said...

This is 11:37. 10:24 and 2:51, you do not know anything at all about me or how I think or operate. I have far less use (and far more contempt) for lying police officers or agents than I do for lying defendants. They should be in jail. I also did not criticze the Bill Matthewman or Tim Day for celebrating the acquittal of their clients. It was merely the posters' reflexive joy at any acquittal without knowledge of the facts of that case. Not surprisingly, you don't address the point I made; you fall back to attacking prosecutors. If you are reading this blog, I would think you would be able to post more thoughtfully if you would simply apply some effort and independent thought. Maybe I am giving you too much credit, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous said...

So, 11:37, I guess only politically correct acquittals should be celebrated, is that it?

Anonymous said...

Dear 11:37. Your point was answered in the explanation that the clebration at minnimum, is a result of the confirmation that the system is working.

Now, answer my question:

When was the last time you brounght a formal complaint, or even informal complaint, against an Agent when you learned that he was bending the truth or even lying?

And please, don't tell me about cases where cops were prosecuted -- sometimes even your ilk can't avoid that. I am talking about an Agent you were working with who lied about Miranda or the way it was read, or lied about the search, or misled you about where the gun was???

Anonymous said...

8:57, you seem to think poorly of my "ilk", whatever that may be. I wouldn't have posted in the first place if I didn't think my track record gave me credibility on this issue. But, I won't respond to interrogation from someone who obviously has already prejudged me and found me guilty of "ilkhood." Funny, isn't that what you seem to think that too many agents and police officers do? 11:37

Anonymous said...

3:00.

On this blog:

You have a right to remain silent and not answer pertinent questions;

your silence can and will be used against you;

You have a right to an attorney;

If you cannot afford an attorney, there are many who will jump to your aid;

But, if you are an asshole, you will be accused of such, and your opinions in which you offer self serving statements such as 'I am honorable,' will be disregarded.

Come on, really, have you ever filed a complaint when you knew or suspected your Agent was being dishonest?

Anonymous said...

Nice work 3:22 - dropping an "a" bomb in a legal blog. Jim Rome says it best: "have a take and don't suck". You would never make it back into the Jungle after that post. Guess it is time to exit stage left from this discussion and get ready for a great day tomorrow. 11:37.

Anonymous said...

3:00 here. You are right, the comment sucked.

It is a great day today. Hope you have a good one too.

Anonymous said...

Oh sorry. 3:22 here, saying sorry to 3:00.

Anonymous said...

11:37/3:00 here. 3:22, no problem from me. Today at Noon is a new start for all of us.