Posted by PeachCapitalusa (anonymous) on October 8, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not sure how i feel about continuing to try a man until you get the verdict that you want.. he may be guilty but if you could not convince a jury the first two times then what gives you the right to try him again and again until you get the verdict you want.. i have always had a problem with this law.. i hope and pray to god he is really guilty..

Posted by mrjones0913 (anonymous) on October 8, 2009 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not know about you, but I for one am glad to see Chilton County work so hard to put a TRUE criminal behind bars. He still needs counseling though he may never get out. The reason he needs counseling is for him to get straight with a power higher than him and for the family's sake. I will pray for all involved.

Posted by chiltoncopeach (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 5:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PeachCapitalusa: Well it is easy to have two mistrials when you have a judge presiding over the case who is speaking to jurors, witnesses, attorney's, and law enforcement when they shouldn't be...I know that if this had been your brother you would not feel as if justice had been served either.

mrjoneso913: The AG's office had a little to do with this one because of issues with Chilton County's "trier of fact and law" who presided over the case. It is bad for our county when Montgomery has to get involved in order to seek justice for a murder. God bless the families involved on each side of this case including the judge who presided over the case. May God be with you SGR and the families involved as you continue to preside over cases in ANY county.

Posted by juswannabeheard (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Even justice can't get past the "Good Ole Boys Club".

Posted by southernpride (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand that the vote last time was 11 to 1 for not guilty. No new evidence was presented. I can not speak for the jury but wonder how they came to the conclusion of guilty when two other juries did not.

I really don't understand our district attorney picking up a shell casing at the crime scene and throwing it into a pond. It may of proved the defendant's guilt or may of exonerated him. Does the chief law enforcement of Autauga, Elmore and Chilton counties doing this not concern anyone?

I think if you try someone enough times even if you can't place them at the scene of the crime, you will get a guilty verdict sooner or later.

So chiltoncopeach, are you saying it was the judge's fault he was not convicted the first two times he was tried? Why no comment on what the chidf law enforcement did? More detail please.

Posted by Rickey (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't really understand that law either. Trying someone over and over until you get a "guilty" plea? How many times can a person be tried? Wait til we hear from kwsgraves; he knows all this kind of stuff :)

Posted by southernpride (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as I know there is no limit even though that does not make sense to me. I have not done any research however.

Posted by chiltoncopeach (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernpride: what are you referring to? The father being arrested for child molestation. I can comment on that: see the article...

Posted by urentitled2myopinion (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone can be tried multiple times for the same crime. You must get a verdict in order to not be tried again. If the first jury had convicted or found him innocent there would not have been another trial. It may not sound right, but until they got a verdict this could continue for as long as the state wanted to spend the money. By the way it was your tax dollars that paid for the state lawyers and the defendant's lawyers. The bill on this entire event is more than we probably want to know. It was also said if they did not get a verdict this time they would do it all over again.

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IF, and I state, IF, the victim had been your spouse, child, sibling, or parent, you would probably keep fighting to have the killer/killers put behind bars. Especially, if, there were no verdict, yet, you knew in your heart that the person accused was the guilty party. While I see most of your comments lean toward not trying these guys multiple times, I agree with trial until A verdict is received. A mistrial/hung jury is not A verdict. It's more like a Brett Favre retirement announcement, it's not a definite answer.

Try looking at it from more than one perspective.

Posted by Rickey (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kwsgraves -
Thank you for enlightening me regarding the law. I'm sometimes ashamed I don't know more than I do. I had no idea that a mistrial/hung jury is not a verdict. So now it all makes sense as to why a person can be tried until an actual verdict is reached. And you are absolutely right ... if it were my relative that was murdered, I'd do all within my power to seek justice.

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

maybe They should have put the juice to him.

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, maybe I worded it wrong, maybe not. While it is a judgement, t is not a FINAL judgement. A not guilty verdict is the only, seemingly, final judgement that precludes any further advancement of prosecution. A guilty verdict has it's appeal process to guarantee the accused is given due process. Retrying a not guilty would violate our constitutional protection of being tried twice for the same crime, (double jeopardy).

However, there is the civil side of a not guilty verdict. A person can still be sued, even if they are found not guilty in a criminal trial, (O.J. SIMPSON). The burden of proof is shifted in a civil trial and the requirement for judgement does not reach the boundry line of, "beyond a reasonble doubt". If you wish to learn more, the whole set of Alabama codified laws is online. Read beyond just the statutes. Read case law and each cited case per statute. I've been studying it since I was a freshman in college in 1987. It changes yearly, is confusing, and is widely interpreted by trial lawyers, judges, and knucleheads like me.

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe so, travlr. But the prosecutor took the guaranteed, easy route. A jury would have had to convict him, recommend the death penalty, and a judge pass judgement of death. Obviously with two trials, this was not, likely, to transpire perfectly.

Posted by Rickey (anonymous) on October 9, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kwsgraves -
I think you explained it quiet well, actually. And I thank you.

travlr -
Clearly, if it was one of my relatives that was murdered, I might have a different point of view --- most likely based on pure revenge. As for the death penalty, I have not yet grasped the logic as to why we (the state) kill people who have killed people in order to teach people that killing people is wrong! I struggle with this one.

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on October 10, 2009 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rickey, maybe the reason you have not been able to grasp that concept is because that it is not designed to teach that killing is wrong but more to rid society of those who do not have any regards to human life. The same reason if you cut off the hands of thief you eliminate his ability to be a farther threat to society and the assets of honest and hard working people. But we can always lock him up for 20 or 30 yrs. at the taxpayers expense just to return him back into society to do it to someone else. and the next time it may very well be one of your relatives or possibly me or you. if these guys had any regards to human life other than their own they would not have committed this murder or been on trial in the beginning. A man is justified in murder when it is to protect his own life or the life of another innocent person. And i can hardly have pity on a man who would kill for traveling money, that in its self proves a man has no regards or conscience for the value of human life.

Posted by Rickey (anonymous) on October 10, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think its called murder when it is to protect one's own life or the life of another innocent person.
As for cost, take a look at these figures from the Death Penalty Information Center (on line).
KANSAS - Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000 while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.
CALIFORNIA - Each death row prisoner costs $174,000 more per year than those in general population. There are 678 inmates on California's death row.
MARYLAND - the cost for a non-death penalty murder case is $1.1 million ($870,000 in imprisonment, $250,000 in trial), while the costs for a death penalty case are $3 million ($1.3 million in imprisonment, $1.7 million in trial).
In 2009, legislation was introduced to abolish the death penalty in many states, including New Mexico, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Maryland. The high costs of the death penalty were repeatedly cited in these debates.
And guess where this money comes from? You guessed it ... taxpayers! While it does seem that keeping murders locked up for some 20 or 30 years would be more expensive than just rendering capital punishment .... this is simply not the case.

Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on October 10, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rickey,
What i would like to know is what is the two million dollar savings per case used for that benefits the innocent people. I would rather spend five million to put that kind of killer to death than one million to incarcerate him only to turn him back out to take another innocent life. How much is one innocent life worth? Just my personal opinion and pretty much my observation of returning pedophiles and stone cold killers back into the free world.

Posted by Rickey (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

travlr423 -
I appreciate your opinion and I am not even claiming that it is any different than my own. I usually don't comment on these types of issues; political issues; nor religious issues. I was attempting to get another poster who was concerned about spending so much tax payers money to see that if he looks at the numbers between locking them up versus executing them ... then clearly execution cost a heck of a lot more tax payers money. Therefore, his fiscal concern could be laid to rest (no pun intended).

Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At what point do we, as a society, realize tougher sentencing does NOT work. Do we increase spending for longer sentencing for lesser crimes. We, for years, until recently, had stiffer/longer penalties for crack over powder cocaine. Cocaine is cocaine. Why spend more money to incarcerate one TYPE of addict over the other because of the redesigned chemical composition that ends in the same result. Relatively short term high, and a lot of money wasted. Or the pot smokers. With the exception of laced joints, in 13 years of law enforcement, military and civilian, I NEVER saw a violent crime committed as a result of pot use. Now, yes, property crimes are committed by almost all drug abusers. But those people are predisposed to theft anyway. When benzadrine users, mostly housewives, truck drivers, and blue collar shift workers, were using bennies, they were productive, (highly might I add, pardon the pun) members of society. And their drug use was legal. The shift in thinking that longer sentencing would cure problems has been a failure. Over-population in the prison system has resulted in good behavior time, early releases, etc...The problem of the WRONGFUL behavior is NOT addressed. Just a revolving door system of longer sentencing, with shorter sentences served. We, KW and I, have picked our retirement communities in the carribean and central America. This problem does not manifest itself there. If you screw up there, you disappear. Problem solved. I'm studying magic too! LOL

Posted by gonefishin (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Has anyone mentioned this is not the first murder he has been involved in?
It was allowed in the trial either.

Posted by gonefishin (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry....type-o

It was NOT allowed in the trial.

Posted by southernpride (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peach you should read the article and comments. It is about trying the guy that was convicted for murder more than once.

What are you talking about???????????

Posted by southernpride (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it justice to keep trying a case until you get a conviction?

kw even if it was a family member, with 11 not guilty votes at the second trial, I would be wondering if they had the right guy or at least what was wrong with the state that they had to keep trying