About Bob Shell

[P. J. Alling]

The judge probably thought that 5 years for a "victim less crime" was a 
miscarriage of justice.  Especially under a law designed for habitual 
offenders. 

Steve Desjardins wrote:
> My experience with the Virginia Judicial System as a juror:
>
> This case involved a 42 year old man who had been caught hunting
> without a license, a misdemeanor.   It turns out he had two felony
> convictions from his early twenties and had lost his right to have gun,
> however;  this meant he was also accused of felony gun possession (or
> whatever they called it).  We found him guilty rather quickly.  We then
> had to decide on a sentence.  The prosecutor informed us that since this
> was his third felony the law required a mandatory 5 year sentence.  As
> it turns out, no one was happy with that since there was no point in
> sending this guy to jail and having the state support his family.  The
> defense attorney then pointed out that despite the law we still had to
> come to a unanimous decision.  We took the hint.  Fifteen minutes later
> we came back and declared that we could not come to unanimous decision
> about how long a five year term was <g>.  The judge declared it a
> mistrial and we were done but confused.   The judge then asked to see
> the jury in his chambers, which I gathered was not typical since the DA
> and PD looked stunned.  The judge explained to us that we hadn’t
> simply wasted our time that morning.  The term for the process was
> “jury nullification” since we had used our “authority” to
> override a law.
>
> So, at least in this case, the jury decided on a sentence and the judge
> made no mention of his ability to overturn us.  I’m no lawyer but that
> prospect was not brought up.
>
>
>   
>>>> Cotty <cottycam at mac.com> 9/2/2007 4:16 PM >>>
>>>>         
> On 02/09/07, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>   
>> And it's not uncommon for a jury to propose, and a judge to impose, 
>> punishment for things the defendant wasn't actually convicted of.
>>     
> That's 
>   
>> the whole purpose of those charges that get dropped " late in the
>>     
> trial".
>   
>
> The jury decides sentence?? Hole moly. We do things different here.
> The
> judge decides. Besides, juries are notoriously fickle - if I was
> guilty,
> I'd opt to be tried by a jury. If I was innocent, I would opt to be
> tried by a just a judge.
>
>
>   
>> Bottom line - whether the sentence he gets is fair or not, a 
>> 50-something year old man who gets involved with a 19 year old drug
>>     
> user 
>   
>> and takes pictures of them doing kinky shit is an idiot.
>>
>> He's ultimately the victim of his own stupidity.
>>     
>
> Personally I think that's a bit harsh. Without knowing all the facts
> of
> the situation - and there's only one person who does - it's too easy
> to
> be judgemental, especially when we place our own life values into a
> situation that pertains to someone else's life.
>
> I think Bob fell into a set of circumstances - either of his own
> making
> or not - that became very difficult, and eventually tragic. Life is
> all
> about choices - and those choices lead to other choices. If you
> misjudge
> your decisions, then the consequences can be startling to outsiders.
> That may not ultimately be stupidity.
>
> Personally I hope Bob understands the consequences at the juncture he
> has arrived at, and now he will be forced into a scenario where he
> will
> be able to consider the results of his actions, rightly or wrongly,
> for
> some considerable time.
>
> And that's just plain sad.
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.