Comments on: Court Throws Out Lori Drew Conviction

By: Purveyor of Iniquities › Links for July 6th

Purveyor of Iniquities › Links for July 6th — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:06:01 +0000

[...] Court Throws Out Lori Drew Conviction « JONATHAN TURLEYJudge Wu appears to have made his decision on the basis as a matter of law rather than fact. This will raise questions of why he let the case go to jury in the first place since the defense challenged the original indictment. If Judge Wu now objects to the legal and constitutional basis for the charges, those concerns were equally evident at the arraignment hearing.(overcrim myspace ) This was written by Andrew Grossman. Posted on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at 1:01 pm. Filed under Links. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback. [...]

By: Anonymously Yours

Anonymously Yours — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:52:48 +0000

Is this not the problem with the 13th Juror? OMG

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:59:23 +0000

“This will remain a tragedy where there was no legal recourse — at least no recourse secured by either the parents or the government.”

******************

“During the first two centuries of this Nation’s history much of our law was developed by judges in the common-law tradition. A basic principle animating our jurisprudence was enshrined in state constitution provisions guaranteeing, in substance, that “every wrong shall have a remedy.” Fashioning appropriate remedies for the violation of rules of law designed to protect a class of citizens was the routine business of judges. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 166 (1803). While it is true that in the early days state law was the source of most of those rules, throughout our history–until 1975–the same practice prevailed in federal courts with regard to federal statutes that left questions of remedy open for judges to answer. In Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 39 (1916), this Court stated the following:

“A disregard of the command of the statute is a wrongful act, and where it results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted, the right to recover the damages from the party in default is implied, according to a doctrine of the common law expressed in 1 Com. Dig., tit. Action upon Statute (F), in these words: ‘So, in every case, where a statute enacts, or prohibits a thing for the benefit of a person, he shall have a remedy upon the same statute for the thing enacted for his advantage, or for the recompense of a wrong done to him contrary to the said law.’ (Per Holt, C. J., Anon., 6 Mod. 26, 27.)”

–Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting in STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC v. SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC., et al., 552 U.S. ___ (2008)(footnotes omitted).

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:49:50 +0000

Do the parents still have the civil suit option or did the statute of limitations run already? I would think that a civil action would be much more productive and hit this nutjob where it hurts.

By: Bob,Esq.

Bob,Esq. — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:30:28 +0000

“Judge Wu appears to have made his decision on the basis as a matter of law rather than fact.”

An excellent tactical decision by Judge Wu; punt it right to the Appellate Court and let them have at the prosecutors for stretching the bounds of reason itself in concocting such a nonsensical case.