New Jersey, Guns, Honest Guy, Prison

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.fark.com/cgi/go.pl?i=5760318&l=http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/brian-aitkens-mistake

Try to follow the law in NJ, harm no one, go to prison. Where's the problem with that, right?

Quote

Snip.

Aitken was sentenced in August after he was convicted of felony possession of a handgun. Before his arrest, Aitken, an entrepreneur and owner of a media consulting business, had no criminal record, and it appears he made a good-faith effort to comply with New Jersey's stringent gun laws. Even the jurors who convicted him seem to have been looking for a reason to acquit him. But the judge gave them little choice. Aitken's best hope now is executive clemency. He is petitioning New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for a reprieve this week.

Snip.

"New Jersey gun laws are insane," Nappen says. "It makes a criminal of every gun owner and forces him to prove his innocence." Worse, in 2008 the New Jersey legislature and then-Gov. John Corzine changed the law to make the penalty for possessing a gun the same as the penalty for using it to commit a separate crime. That means someone like Aitken gets the same punishment as someone who assaults another person with a gun. In November 2008, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a directive (PDF) urging the state's prosecutors to apply the new law "vigorously," "strictly," and "uniformly."

If you really want to be distgusted, read the parts I cut for copyright.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[davjohns 1]

This appears to be the kind of Judge that twists things to his own liking at the expense of others. "Low-life" is the term that comes to mind.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[skyrider 0]

Surely this will be overruled, that Judge denied th ejury of hearing all the important facts..

Quote

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Surely this will be overruled, that Judge denied th ejury of hearing all the important facts..

Quote

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

The jurors are cowards - they should have refused to follow the judge's orders, and gone with "jury nullification".

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

The jurors are cowards - they should have refused to follow the judge's orders, and gone with "jury nullification".

They probably didn't even know that was an option. When I've pulled duty, I've tried to show up ready to interpret testimony and judge facts, not prepared to work through the finer points of law.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

then-Gov. John Corzine changed the law

[Thread drift] Strictly in the interest of accuracy, Corzine didn't change the law; governors can't do that, only legislatures can. The NJ Legislature passed a bill changing the law by two majority votes of the quorum present - one vote in the state Senate, and another vote in the state House of Representatives. Once passed, Corzone then signed the bill into law. [/thread drift]

Back on topic, most people who have little contact with criminal courts don't realize how very pro-prosecution 90% of judges hearing criminal cases are. Judges trying criminal cases block defenses and defense evidence all the time, and more often than not, the appellate courts let them get away with it. Usually, people don't give shit about that; but this sort of case, of course, has different fans in the bleachers, so it gets publicity and people are outraged, outraged, that the judge would stubbornly block defense evidence. .

That being said, it does seem that this judge over-reached the exclusion of defenses to such an extent that there just may be a fair chance of reversal on appeal.

[davjohns 1]

I can't believe the judge ignored three requests for clarification on the law. That's his job. If I were on the jury, I'd refuse to give a verdict. I think that case gets thrown out easily. Too bad the guy has to sit in prison while it is fought. That judge isn't going to let him out while it is heard.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

then-Gov. John Corzine changed the law

[Thread drift] Strictly in the interest of accuracy, Corzine didn't change the law; governors can't do that, only legislatures can. The NJ Legislature passed a bill changing the law by two majority votes of the quorum present - one vote in the state Senate, and another vote in the state House of Representatives. Once passed, Corzone then signed the bill into law. [/thread drift]

Just to follow you thread drift a bit further
I have to point out you are not correct. Now your post shows the way this is supposed to work but examples can be given proving judges and courts have written law. They are not supposed to but they have

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skyrider 0]

How is either of those points thread drift? Interpretation of the law, is why this guy is in jail!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

How is either of those points thread drift? Interpretation of the law, is why this guy is in jail!

Good point!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[juanesky 0]

So we can assume that in NJ legally purchasing/owning a gun = crime and you get jail time for it. Gotcha

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Som we can assume that in NJ legally purchasing/owning a gun = crime and you get jail time for it. Gotcha

That is what it sounds like to me

A bunch of bs if you ask me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Som we can assume that in NJ legally purchasing/owning a gun = crime and you get jail time for it. Gotcha

That is what it sounds like to me

A bunch of bs if you ask me

Plus he followed the rules of law, locked , unloaded, out of reach!

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Back on topic, most people who have little contact with criminal courts don't realize how very pro-prosecution 90% of judges hearing criminal cases are. Judges trying criminal cases block defenses and defense evidence all the time, and more often than not, the appellate courts let them get away with it. Usually, people don't give shit about that; but this sort of case, of course, has different fans in the bleachers, so it gets publicity and people are outraged, outraged, that the judge would stubbornly block defense evidence. .

That being said, it does seem that this judge over-reached the exclusion of defenses to such an extent that there just may be a fair chance of reversal on appeal.

A lot if defenses are denied becase they don't apply (defense liars doing their lawyerly tricks like they're paid to do). Others have hearings or experts testifying. This one is a defense written into law because there is no presumption of innocence. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent under this law. The only way to prove your innocence is using one of the exceptions. If a judge won't allow defense to introduce the exception, there is nonway for a jury to come to any verdict other than guilty. That is the problem with laws like this. They put the burden on the defense, rather than the prosecution where it belongs. That being said, I've heard of jurors being excluded simply because they have heard of jury nulification.

I haven't been able to get a copy of the transcripts, and the judgment is worthless, but I have to think that this will be remanded for new trial.

If appellate courts don't think the judge erred, there may be an appels case based on Heller and MacDonald. After all, what good is the right to own, if you can't bring it home or move it from home to legitemate place without being arrested and incarcerated?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

This one is a defense written into law because there is no presumption of innocence. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent under this law. The only way to prove your innocence is using one of the exceptions.

I agree that the way this case was prosecuted seems absurd, and I hope that this conviction is vacated and charges dropped (assuming the facts are as the article states).

I am curious about your assertion that the law presumes guilt, though. It seems to me that Mr. Aitkin admitted that the gun in the car was his. Having stipulated to that fact, what else remains except to determine if he met the legal conditions for transporting the gun? How else could the case possibly have gone? Now if he had denied the gun was his, I'd expect (or hope) he'd be "presumed innocent" and the State would have had to prove he knew about the gun and was intentionally transporting it. I'm having a hard time seeing how this "presumes guilt". Otherwise, you could say that any time you are questioned about any activity that requires a permit or license, such as driving, hunting, fishing, or piloting a plane, you are "presumed guilty" until you can prove your innocence by showing your license. If, for example, game wardens had to presume everyone out hunting had a license, and could only ask to see a license if they already had evidence that a particular hunter did not, enforcement of hunting regulations would be impossible in any meaningful sense.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Kennedy 0]

The difference you missed is two fold. First, gun ownership is a right. Next there is a legal way to do those things. You can get a license for driving, fishing, hunting, etc. There is no legal way to transport a pistol in NJ. Read the entire article at the link. It's not long, but it covers the situation well.

Basically, the law says a citizen can have a gun, but anyone moving a gun is breaking the law and must prove that they fit one of the exceptions. The law says you can move a gun from home to home, to a gun smith, to a range, and to a dealer. Then the law says if you move it legally and authorities find out, you'll be arrested and prosecuted, and you have to prove that you dot the exception.

Like I said, this law makes a legal activity illegal until proven legal. It puts the burden on the accused.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

A lot if defenses are denied becase they don't apply

I'm not talking about defenses that should be denied. I'm talking about defenses that should be permitted, but are not, because it's politically much safer for a judge to lean on the side of police and prosecution than to be properly neutral and thus give the defense its share of rulings when appropriate. The 90% figure I mentioned above is based on 25+ years of personal experience and observation, not speculation or bias (I've worked both sides).

Quote

(defense liars doing their lawyerly tricks like they're paid to do).

Ah, you bait me. OK. I learned very early on that the instances where cops "massage" the facts under oath is huge, and the prosecutors (and, frankly, the judges) in the courtroom are their willing enablers. So you can just put down yer violin.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Back on topic, most people who have little contact with criminal courts don't realize how very pro-prosecution 90% of judges hearing criminal cases are.

This was my "feeling" when I attended as a jury member last week.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

NJ Gov. Christie commutes sentence in Brian Aitken gun case

Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found with guns he'd purchased legally in Colorado...

Source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20101220/STATE/101220046/NJ+Gov.+Christie+commutes+sentence+in+Brian+Aitken+gun+case

Actually, I don't think commutation goes far enough - that still leaves him with a felony criminal record. I think he deserves a full pardon and expungement.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Update:

NJ Gov. Christie commutes sentence in Brian Aitken gun case

Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found with guns he'd purchased legally in Colorado...

Source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20101220/STATE/101220046/NJ+Gov.+Christie+commutes+sentence+in+Brian+Aitken+gun+case

and now the DA that went after him needs to be thrown out of office

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Update:

NJ Gov. Christie commutes sentence in Brian Aitken gun case

Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found with guns he'd purchased legally in Colorado...

Source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20101220/STATE/101220046/NJ+Gov.+Christie+commutes+sentence+in+Brian+Aitken+gun+case

and now the DA that went after him needs to be thrown out of office

Not likely, as it's not a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct. What the prosecutor did was use the discretion granted his office to strictly follow the letter of NJ law - a law that I realize you disagree with, but which was created by the NJ Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor. And while you may feel that the NJ law violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed to trial, the defendant was convicted by a jury, and that conviction has not been reversed on appeal.

FWIW, it seems that county chief prosecutors in New Jersey are appointed by the governor (not elected) to a term of office. Come the end of the term, the governor may either re-appoint the prosecutor to another term, or decline to re-appoint him, and appoint someone else in his place. I'm sure politics and ideology play a large part in such appointments.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Update:

NJ Gov. Christie commutes sentence in Brian Aitken gun case

Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found with guns he'd purchased legally in Colorado...

Source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20101220/STATE/101220046/NJ+Gov.+Christie+commutes+sentence+in+Brian+Aitken+gun+case

and now the DA that went after him needs to be thrown out of office

Not likely, as it's not a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct. What the prosecutor did was use the discretion granted his office to strictly follow the letter of NJ law - a law that I realize you disagree with, but which was created by the NJ Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor. And while you may feel that the NJ law violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed to trial, the defendant was convicted by a jury, and that conviction has not been reversed on appeal.

FWIW, it seems that county chief prosecutors in New Jersey are appointed by the governor (not elected) to a term of office. Come the end of the term, the governor may either re-appoint the prosecutor to another term, or decline to re-appoint him, and appoint someone else in his place. I'm sure politics and ideology play a large part in such appointments.

I know it is not likley
However it is clear (at least to me) his decision making skills are quesionable at best
He should be removed

Much like the 4 IA SC justices will soon be removed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Update:

NJ Gov. Christie commutes sentence in Brian Aitken gun case

Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found with guns he'd purchased legally in Colorado...

Source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20101220/STATE/101220046/NJ+Gov.+Christie+commutes+sentence+in+Brian+Aitken+gun+case

and now the DA that went after him needs to be thrown out of office

Not likely, as it's not a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct. What the prosecutor did was use the discretion granted his office to strictly follow the letter of NJ law - a law that I realize you disagree with, but which was created by the NJ Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor. And while you may feel that the NJ law violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed to trial, the defendant was convicted by a jury, and that conviction has not been reversed on appeal.

FWIW, it seems that county chief prosecutors in New Jersey are appointed by the governor (not elected) to a term of office. Come the end of the term, the governor may either re-appoint the prosecutor to another term, or decline to re-appoint him, and appoint someone else in his place. I'm sure politics and ideology play a large part in such appointments.

I know it is not likley
However it is clear (at least to me) his decision making skills are quesionable at best
He should be removed

Much like the 4 IA SC justices will soon be removed

You're missing the point, and thinking with your heart and not your head.

#1- He can't be removed, before his term of office expires, for using his lawful discretion, even if people think it was a dick move, unless he abused his office by gross misconduct or corruption. That didn't happen here.

#2 - You're directing all your anger against the prosecutor. But the legislature, governor and courts all played an active part in this, too. Had the new governor not commuted the sentence, the defendant's sentence would still be in effect.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I know it is not likley
However it is clear (at least to me) his decision making skills are quesionable at best
He should be removed

Much like the 4 IA SC justices will soon be removed

it's their jobs to prosecute the law as written. If the law is poorly written, that's not the problem of a DA. Unless you NOW want lawyers to "write" law and not legislatures.

Your beef in both your examples is with the legislatures, not the judges, not the lawyers.

Process should be king. Not expediency in satisfying any specific agenda.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Update:

NJ Gov. Christie commutes sentence in Brian Aitken gun case

Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found with guns he'd purchased legally in Colorado...

Source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20101220/STATE/101220046/NJ+Gov.+Christie+commutes+sentence+in+Brian+Aitken+gun+case

and now the DA that went after him needs to be thrown out of office

Not likely, as it's not a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct. What the prosecutor did was use the discretion granted his office to strictly follow the letter of NJ law - a law that I realize you disagree with, but which was created by the NJ Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor. And while you may feel that the NJ law violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed to trial, the defendant was convicted by a jury, and that conviction has not been reversed on appeal.

Quote

According to testimony Torries later gave at Aitken's trial, before leaving Colorado Aitken researched and printed out New Jersey and federal gun laws to be sure he moved his firearms legally. Richard Gilbert, Aitken's trial attorney, says Aitken also called the New Jersey State Police to get advice on how to legally transport his guns, although Burlington County Superior Court Judge James Morley didn't allow testimony about that phone call at Aitken's trial.

***Brian Aitken claimed he was moving between residences, and there is pretty strong evidence that he was. Sue Aitken testified that her son was moving his belongings from her house to his. So did Aitken's roommate. One of the police officers at the scene testified that Aitken's car was filled with personal belongings.

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

Looks like shenanigans to me - I'm sure you think differently, however.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706