|
Having heard none of the evidence, not knowing the judge, its hard to give an opinion, but as a prosecutor, my thoughts as to what may have occurred are:
1) possibly the judge did not believe part of the victim's story (i.e., the punch, not pushing the wife), and so he either discarded other parts of the story (i.e., how badly he was hurt), or decided to not find the defendant guilty on all charges as "punishment to the victim" for testifying falsely
2) the judge decided to split the baby (lawyer talk for giving both sides something they are happy with and something they are unhappy with, rather than having one side really mad at you and the other side maybe completely happy with you-- usually found in divorce cases) For motive to do so: re-election...
3) why is a judge hearing this rather than a jury? Did the prosecution agree to have a bench trial? Judges hope to be re-elected, and thus may be more susceptible to pressure than jurors. If state agreed to non-jury trial, did the judge have a track record that would make this a bad decision?
4) could the judge believe testimony that the defendant did not think the guy in the black and white striped shirt was a ref? Given that I have never seen anyone wear such a shirt that either wasn't a ref or pretending to be a ref, sounds hard to believe. So, why would the judge not find him guilty of assault and battery on a sport's official, but find him guilty of simple assault? He has basically found him guilty of assault on a person who was not a ref, so he for some reason has discounted that person being a ref. To me, it appears he was looking for a way to give him less punishment, so he found him guilty of a lesser charge. Why? Again, could be to punish the ref for some indiscretion the judge believes he committed (i.e., pushing the wife, cussing the wife, testifying falsely) or because he just didn't want to give him harsh punishment because he thought he was a "good citizen".
5) what is the judge's track record on criminal cases. There are judges prosecutors would prefer not to have hear their cases because they are known to be more liberal, more lenient, and more defense oriented than some other judges. On the other hand, there are judges which defense attorneys don't relish being in front of because they are more conservative, harsher in punishment, and more prosecution oriented. This could go back to the prosecutor's decision to agree to a non-jury trial.
All these types of variables run through my mind. Having not heard the testimony, and not knowing any of the parties, these are just possibilities.
__________________
If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
|
Fri Feb 11, 2005, 09:38am
Linear Mode
