Another court question

[wisco]

Continuing on from: Why do court cases take so long?

...why aren't sentences handed out immediately upon conviction? As it is, there will be over 5 weeks between the jurors verdict and the sentencing?

[Curt581]

...why aren't sentences handed out immediately upon conviction?

Sometimes, they do... but usually on minor crimes.

On a homicide like the one you're asking about, the judge orders a presentence investigation with a subsequent report. That includes things that aren't in the original investigation due to admissibility issues. The defendant's background, victim's background, victim (family) impact statements, mitigating and aggravating factors, etc.

Besides... what's your rush? The goof is in custody and will remain in custody.

[wisco]

Oh no rush really, just curiosity.

Thanks Curt.

[Joeyd6]

In the federal system, they have to send it to probation who investigates the person, the results of the crime, and how it hurt the victims. They write a report and give it to the judge so he knows really who the guy/gal is, and everything about their life from how much they have in the bank, to performance appraisals at work, and how the victim really feels. The judge can use all that as he/she decides what punishment is appropriate.

[Kimble]

...why aren't sentences handed out immediately upon conviction? As it is, there will be over 5 weeks between the jurors verdict and the sentencing?

It makes it difficult for the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney to make their tee time on the local 18 holes when they have to finish the trial AND stick around for the sentencing.

[Legoate]

What I found weird about court when I first started testifying is that jurors really get no knowledge about a person's past history at all during their current case.

Example: I arrested a parolee for a burglary. During a parole search of the individual I found evidence that further linked him to the crime. During a records check I found he was on parole for burglary, and he had been in and out of prison for burglaries his entire life.

However prior to my testimony I was advised that there would be a mistrial if I mentioned anything about the subject being on parole, any reason he was on parole, or anything at all about what I found during my records check. The defense attorney spent about an hour making it sound like I had stopped his client for no reason and that I had conducted an illegal search. Of course I couldn't give the reason I searched him because I would have to mention he was on parole.

Fast forward to sentencing: The subject is convicted. The judge is then allowed to consider all past offenses, consider the suspects demeanor and likelihood to recommit the same offense, even allowed to consider their behavior in the county jail during trial. The judges are also allowed to hear from victims, friends, and family members. This takes a bit of time to gather all of the information.

So yes it can be painfully slow. I always think of the legal system like a big bulldozer. It takes forever to get to where you are at, but once gets there you'd better get out of the way or it will run you down.

[wisco]

That is weird Legoate.

I would think that jurors knowing about the suspects previous actions/convictions would be key in proving his guilt.

[wisco]

He was sentenced today, from the court records:

"The Court orders: ON EACH COUNT - The Def. is sentenced to 10 years, with an Initial Term of Confinement in Prison of 5 years, and the maximum time to serve on Extended Supervision of 5 years consecutive. Credit for time served: 1 yr. and 3 days"

So, if I'm reading this right... he's getting 5 years incarceration for each person for a total of 10 years, plus 10 years parole?

[Curt581]

He was sentenced today, from the court records:

"The Court orders: ON EACH COUNT - The Def. is sentenced to 10 years, with an Initial Term of Confinement in Prison of 5 years, and the maximum time to serve on Extended Supervision of 5 years consecutive. Credit for time served: 1 yr. and 3 days"

So, if I'm reading this right... he's getting 5 years incarceration for each person for a total of 10 years, plus 10 years parole?

I looked up Wirth's case file. It doesn't say if the sentences for the two counts are consecutive or concurrent. The court record doesn't specify and it probably should have. I don't know if was an oversight by the court, or if the official Order of Conviction will say one way or another. Conceivably, he could do 5 years in (minus time served) and 5 on paper and be done.

It sucks, but that's juries for you.

[BP348]

That is weird Legoate.

I would think that jurors knowing about the suspects previous actions/convictions would be key in proving his guilt.

I've seen it happen in a lot of cases. The court doesn't allow it because they think it will sway the way jurors think about the current case.

In the above if you had heard that the offender had previously been convicted of burglary and was currently on trial for a suspected burglary do you think you could objectively view the evidence against the defendant or would you automatically assume that since he had done it before then he must have done it this time?

In many if not most cases I don't think the leopard is going to change its spots but I really don't want to put someone in prison based only on their past offenses. As in the above the evidence showed the offender was guilty not his past record.

I can’t say I always believe in this policy but I can understand why it’s done the way it is.

[wisco]

What you say makes sense BP.

curt - I read in the paper today that he will serve 10 years behind bars, minus time served... so essentially he'll be out in 9.

[Legoate]

I can’t say I always believe in this policy but I can understand why it’s done the way it is.

I understand why it is done now- just didn't during my first visits to court. The issue I have is with defense attorneys who spend all their time implying that the cop is somehow dirty and the cop can't give the real reason they stopped the person because it will cause a mistrial.