#Parole Laws California

[calparolelawyer]

Securing Early Release: How Compassionate Release Attorneys Make a Difference

Navigating the legal process for early release from prison can be overwhelming, especially when seeking compassionate release. This legal option allows individuals with significant medical conditions, advanced age, or other exceptional circumstances to be released from incarceration before completing their sentence. Compassionate release attorneys play a pivotal role in these cases, guiding clients through the legal hurdles and ensuring the best possible outcome.

Understanding Compassionate Release

Compassionate release provides an opportunity for inmates to return to their communities when continued incarceration no longer serves the intended purpose of their sentence. It is typically granted under specific conditions, such as terminal illness or severe physical impairment, where the inmate no longer poses a threat to public safety. Compassionate release is not automatically granted; it requires substantial documentation, a well-structured application, and, in many cases, a court hearing. This is where professional legal guidance becomes essential.

The Role of Compassionate Release Lawyers

Compassionate release lawyers are equipped with specialized knowledge of state and federal laws governing early release. They assist in building strong cases by gathering necessary medical records, preparing petitions, and coordinating with correctional facilities. In addition to managing paperwork, these lawyers also present persuasive arguments in hearings to highlight their clients' eligibility, aiming to secure a favorable decision from the court. Their expertise ensures that clients meet the strict requirements and deadlines involved in the process.

California Parole Hearing Lawyer: Bridging the Gap

For inmates in California, early release may also involve navigating parole boards. A California parole hearing lawyer provides critical assistance in representing inmates during parole hearings, ensuring that their case for release is well-prepared and strategically presented. These lawyers understand the intricacies of parole hearings, which often require demonstrating rehabilitation and ensuring the parole board of the inmate’s readiness to reintegrate into society. With proper legal support, individuals stand a much better chance of receiving parole approval.

Navigating the complexities of compassionate release and parole hearings demands the expertise of legal professionals. Whether filing a petition for compassionate release or representing a client before the parole board, having an experienced attorney on your side makes all the difference. For individuals in California, CalParoleLawyer offers invaluable legal assistance, ensuring that every step toward early release is handled with precision and care.

[stresscrimes]

INFO POST ON DANIEL MARSH

On April 14th, 2013, Daniel would leave his mothers home early in the morning to search for a home with open windows or doors in Davis, California. He would later come upon the home of Claudia (76) and Oliver (87). Daniel cut open the window screen, invading their home, and made his way into their bedroom where they were asleep. After a few minutes of watching them sleep, Daniel would stab them to death, with Claudia sustaining 67 stab wounds, and Oliver 61. Daniel would then dissect, eviscerate, and mutilate their dead bodies. The couples bodies were discovered the next day, but there would be no arrest for Daniel until June due to his extensive planning, no DNA, fingerprints, footprints, or any evidence at the crime scene. Even though the idiot almost got away with murder at 15, he would become a suspect after bragging to his friends about what he did. Daniel was then interrogated and confessed to the crimes, where he would tell investigators the murders gave him a feeling of pure happiness which he felt for weeks. Daniel had a long history of violent and antisocial behaviors, as well as mental health issues. He had also been fantasizing about murdering people since the age of 10 and aspired to become a serial killer. Daniel was given the maximum of 52 years to life, which was given to him at 17 years old in 2014. Daniel will be allowed by California law to be paroled after serving 25 years, when he is 42.

[aries-the-red05]

EVERYONE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!!!

Huge GIGANTIC TW for SA, mentions of rape, mentions of masturbation, and transphobia.

A 2018 report from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law along with a subsequent report in the UCLA Journal of Gender and Law, found that it was common for trans women placed in men's prisons to be assigned to cells with aggressive cisgender male cellmates as both a reward and a means of placation for said cellmates, so as to maintain social control and to, as one inmate described it, "keep the violence rate down". Trans women used in this manner are often raped daily. This process is known as "V-coding", and has been described as so common that it is effectively "a central part of a trans woman's sentence". The report also found it common for correctional officers to publicly strip search trans women inmates, before putting their bodies on display for not only the other correctional officers, but for the other prisoners. Trans women in this situation are sometimes made to dance, present, or masturbate at the correctional officers' discretion. The prisoners serving as customers for these women are informally referred to as "husbands". A 2021 California study found that 69% of trans women prisoners reported being made to perform sexual acts they would have rather not, 58.5% reported being violently sexually assaulted, and 88% overall reported being made to take part in a "marriage-like relationship". Trans women who physically resist the customer's advances are often criminally charged with assault and placed in solitary confinement, the assault charge then being used to extend the woman's prison stay and deny her parole.

This not only happens in the USA, but happens globally and there has been documented cases of it happening in France and the UK as well.

Many people aware of it fear that it will drastically increase after Trump's Project 2025 as trans women are arrested and imprisoned for simply existing in public, this is a real possibility, and the influence can spread globally to cause other nations to do this too.

Best I can say is: SPREAD AWARENESS PEOPLE!

Written by u/communistsorcerer

Commented on a post by u/communistsorcerer on r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns2

Spread this!!!!!!!

[dertaglichedan]

Max Factor heir and convicted rapist Andrew Luster is set to walk free after being granted parole - as victim slams Kamala Harris reform law

The disgraced Max Factor heir who was convicted of 86 counts of drugging and raping unconscious women in 2003 is set to be released early after his crimes were reclassified as 'non-violent' under a 2016 law change masterminded by Kamala Harris, DailyMail.com can reveal. 

Andrew Luster, now 60, infamously fled to Mexico during his rape trial – only to be tracked down by Dog the Bounty Hunter and hauled back to the US in chains.

Now one of his victims has bravely come forward in an exclusive interview to talk about her fears at his imminent freedom.

Tonja Balden, 51, who was just 23 when she was drugged and raped by Luster after a night out in Santa Barbara, told DailyMail.com. 'I'm afraid that when he is released he may continue the same crimes. He just turned 60. That's not very old.

'It is so psychopathic to set up this type of thing where you find a woman, drug her, and then she's an unconscious body and to do all of these things to her while you're videotaping it. That is a real sadistic way of thinking that I don't know if that can be fixed.'

Initially handed 124 years in prison, depraved Luster's sentence was revised down to 50 years in 2013 on appeal.

And now the serial rapist will walk free from Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California, in a few months' time after being granted parole in August, having served just half his sentence.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"The Progressives’ design for the penitentiary did alter the system of incarceration. Their ideas on normalization, classification, education, labor, and discipline had an important effect upon prison administration. But in this field, perhaps above all others, innovation must not be confused with reform. Once again, rhetoric and reality diverged substantially. Progressive programs were adopted more readily in some states than in others, more often in industrialized and urban areas, less often in southern, border, and mountain regions. Nowhere, however, were they adopted consistently. One finds a part of the program in one prison, another part in a second or in a third. Change was piecemeal, not consistent, and procedures were almost nowhere implemented to the degree that reformers wished. One should think not of a Progressive prison, but of prisons with more or less Progressive features.

The change that would have first struck a visitor to a twentieth-century institution who was familiar with traditional practices, was the new style of prisoners’ dress. The day of the stripes passed, outlandish designs gave way to more ordinary dress. It was a small shift, but officials enthusiastically linked it to a new orientation for incarceration. In 1896 the warden of Illinois’s Joliet prison commented that inmates “should be treated in a manner that would tend to cultivate in them, spirit of self-respect, manhood and self-denial. . . , We are certainly making rapid headway, as is shown by the recently adopted Parole Law and the abolishment of prison stripes.” In 1906, the directors of the New Hampshire prison, eager to follow the dictates of the “science of criminology” and “the laws of modern prisons,” complained that “the old unsightly black and red convict suit is still used. . . . This prison garb is degrading to the prisoner and in modern prisons is no longer worn.” The uniform should be grey: “Modern prisons have almost without exception adopted this color.” The next year they proudly announced that the legislature had approved an appropriation of $700 to cover the costs of the turnover. By the mid-1930’s the Attorney General’s survey of prison conditions reported that only four states (all southern) still used striped uniforms. The rest had abandoned “the ridiculous costumes of earlier days.”

To the same ends, most penitentiaries abolished the lock step and the rules of silence. Sing-Sing, which had invented that curious shuffle, substituted a simple march. Pennsylvania’s Eastern State Penitentiary, world famous for creating and enforcing the silent system, now allowed prisoners to talk in dining rooms, in shops, and in the yard. Odd variations on these practices also ended. “It had been the custom for years,” noted the New Hampshire prison directors, “not to allow prisoners to look in any direction except downward,” so that “when a man is released from prison he will carry with him as a result of this rule a furtive and hang-dog expression.” In keeping with the new ethos, they abolished the regulation.

Concomitantly, prisons allowed inmates “freedom of the yard,” to mingle, converse, and exercise for an hour or two daily. Some institutions built baseball fields and basketbaIl courts and organized prison teams. “An important phase in the care of the prisoner,” declared the warden of California’s Folsom prison, “is the provisions made for proper recreation. Without something to look forward to, the men would become disheartened. . . . Baseball is the chief means of recreation and it is extremely popular.” The new premium on exercise and recreation was the penitentiary’s counterpart to the Progressive playground movement and settlement house athletic clubs.

This same orientation led prisons to introduce movies. Sing Sing showed films two nights a week, others settled for once a week, and the warden or the chaplain usually made the choice. Folsom’s warden, for example, like to keep them light: “Good wholesome comedy with its laugh provoking qualities seems to be the most beneficial.” Radio soon appeared as well. The prisons generally established a central system, providing inmates with earphones in their cells to listen to the programs that the administration selected. The Virginia State Penitentiary allowed inmates to use their own sets, with the result that, as a visitor remarked “the institution looks like a large cob-web with hundreds of antennas, leads and groundwires strung about the roofs and around the cell block.”

Given a commitment to sociability, prisons liberalized rules of correspondence and visits. Sing-Sing placed no restrictions on the number of letters, San Quentin allowed one a day, the New Jersey penitentiary at Trenton permitted six a month. Visitors could now come to most prisons twice a month and some institutions, like Sing-Sing, allowed visits five times a month. Newspapers and magazines also enjoyed freer circulation. As New Hampshire’s warden observed in 1916: “The new privileges include newspapers, that the men may keep up with the events of the day, more frequent writing of letters and receiving of letters from friends, more frequent visits from relatives . . . all of which tend to contentment and the reestablishment of self-respect.’? All of this would make the prisoners’ “life as nearly normal as circumstances will permit, so that when they are finally given their liberty they will not have so great a gap to bridge between the life they have led here . . . and the life that we hope they are to lead.”

These innovations may well have eased the burden of incarceration. Under conditions of total deprivation of liberty, amenities are not to be taken lightly. But whether they could normalize the prison environment and breed self-respect among inmates is quite another matter. For all these changes, the prison community remained abnormal. Inmates simply did not look like civilians; no one would mistake a group of convicts for a gathering of ordinary citizens. The baggy grey pants and the formless grey jacket, each item marked prominently with a stenciled identification number, became the typical prison garb. And the fact that many prisons allowed the purchase of bits of clothing, such as a sweater or more commonly a cap, hardly gave inmates a better appearance. The new dress substituted one kind of uniform for another. Stripes gave way to numbers.

So too, prisoners undoubtedly welcomed the right to march or walk as opposed to shuffle, and the right to talk to each other without fear of penalty. But freedom of the yard was limited to an hour or two a day and it was usually spent in “aimless milling about.” Recreational facilities were generally primitive, and organized athletic programs included only a handful of men. More disturbing, prisoners still spent the bulk of non-working time in their cells. Even liberal prisons locked their men in by 5:30 in the afternoon and kept them shut up until the next morning. Administrators continued to censor mail, reading materials, movies, and radio programs; their favorite prohibitions involved all matter dealing with sex or communism. Inmates preferred eating together to eating alone in a cell. But wardens, concerned about the possibility of riots with so many inmates congregated together, often added a catwalk above the mess hall and put armed guards on patrol.

Prisoners may well have welcomed liberalized visiting regulations, but the encounters took place under trying conditions. Some prisons permitted an initial embrace, more prohibited all physical contact. The rooms were dingy and gloomy. Most institutions had the prisoner and his visitor talk across a table, generally separated by a glass or wire mesh. The more security-minded went to greater pains. At Trenton, for example, bullet-proof glass divided inmate from visitor; they talked through a perforated metal opening in the glass. Almost everywhere guards sat at the ends of the tables and conversations had to be carried on in a normal voice; anyone caught whispering would be returned to his cell. The whole experience was undoubtedly more frustrating than satisfying.

The one reform that might have fundamentally altered the internal organization of the prison, Osborne’s Mutual Welfare League, was not implemented to any degree at all. The League persisted for a few years at Sing-Sing, but a riot in 1929 gave guards and other critics the occasion to eliminate it. One couId argue that inmate self-rule under Osborne was little more than a skillful exercise in manipulation, allowing Osborne to cloak his own authority in a more benevolent guise. It is unnecessary, however, to dwell on so fine a point. Wardens were simply not prepared to give over any degree of power to inmates. After all, how could men who had already abused their freedom on the outside be trusted to exercise it on the inside? Administrators also feared, not unreasonably, that inmate rule would empower inmate gangs to abuse fellow prisoners. In brief, the concept of a Mutual Welfare League made little impact on prison systems throughout this period.

If prisons could not approximate a normal community, they fared no better in attempting to approximate a therapeutic community. Again, reform programs frequently did alter inherited practices but they inevitably fell far short of fulfilling expectations. Prisons did not warrant the label of hospital or school.

Starting in the 1910’s and even more commonly through the 1920's, state penitentiaries established a period of isolation and classification for entering inmates. New prisoners were confined to a separate building or cell block (or occasionally, to one institution in a complex of state institutions); they remained there for a two- to four-week period, took tests and underwent interviews, and then were placed in the general prison population. In the Attorney General’s Survey of Release Procedures: Prisons forty-five institutions in a sample of sixty followed such practices. Eastern State Penitentiary, for example, isolated newcomers for thirty days under the supervision of a classification committee made up of two deputy wardens, the parole officer, a physician, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, the educational director, the social service director, and two chaplains. The federal government’s new prison at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, opened in 1932 and, eager to employ the most modern principles, also followed this routine. All new prisoners were on “quarantine status,” and over the course of a month each received a medical examination, psychometric tests to measure his intelligence, and an interview with the Supervisor of Education. The Supervisor then decided on a program, subject to the approval of its Classification Board. All of this was to insure “that an integrated program . . . may lead to the most effective adjustment, both within the Institution and after discharge.”

It was within the framework of these procedures that psychiatrists and psychologists took up posts inside the prisons for the first time. The change can be dated precisely. By 1926, sixty-seven institutions employed psychiatrists: thirty-five of them made their appointments between 1920 and 1926. Of forty-five institutions having psychologists, twenty-seven hired them between 1920 and 1926. The innovation was quite popular among prison officials. “The only rational method of caring for prisoners,” one Connecticut administrator declared, “is by classifying and treating them according to scientific knowledge . . . [that] can only be obtained by the employment of the psychologist, the psychiatrist, and the physician.” In fact, one New York official believed it “very unfair to the inmate as well as to the institution to try and manage an institution of this type without the aid of a psychiatrist.”

Over this same period several states also implemented greater institutional specialization. Most noteworthy was their frequent isolation of the criminal insane from the general population. In 1904, only five states maintained prisons for the criminally insane; by 1930, twenty-four did. At the same time, reformatories for young first offenders, those between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five or sixteen and thirty, became increasingly popular. In 1904, eleven states operated such facilities; in 1930, eighteen did. Several states which constructed new prisons between 1900 and 1935 attempted to give each facility a specific assignment. No state pursued this policy more diligently than New York. It added Great Meadow (Comstock), and Attica to its chain of institutions, the first two to service minor offenders, the latter, for the toughest cases. New York‘s only rival was Pennsylvania. By the early 1930’s it ran a prison farm on a minimum security basis; it had a new Eastern State Penitentiary at Grateford and the older Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh for medium security; and it made the parent of all prisons, the Eastern State Penitentiary at Philadelphia, the maximum security institution. Some states with two penitentiaries which traditionally had served different geographic regions, now tried to distinguish them by class of criminals. In California, for instance, San Quentin was to hold the more hopeful cases, Folsom the hard core.

But invariably, these would-be therapeutic innovations had little effect on prison routines. They never managed to penetrate the system in any depth. Only a distinct minority of institutions attempted to implement such programs and even their efforts produced thin results. Change never moved beyond the superficial."

- David J. Rothman, Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. Revised Edition. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2002 (1980), p. 128-134

[justinspoliticalcorner]

AP, via The Guardian:

The man who was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for attacking the husband of Nancy Pelosi with a hammer in their California home was sentenced on Tuesday to life in prison without the possibility of parole following a separate state trial.

A San Francisco jury in June found David DePape guilty of charges including aggravated kidnapping, first-degree burglary and false imprisonment of an elder. Before issuing the sentence, Judge Harry Dorfman dismissed arguments from DePape’s attorneys that he be granted a new trial for the 2022 attack against Paul Pelosi, who was 82 years old at the time. “It’s my intention that Mr DePape will never get out of prison, he can never be paroled,” Dorfman said while handing out the punishment. One of the defense attorneys, Adam Lipson, asked Dorfman before the sentence was handed down to consider DePape’s mental health and isolation that made him susceptible to online propaganda. “This is a man who has always been a peaceful, law-abiding person up until his activation,” Lipson said.

When given the chance to address the court before his sentencing, DePape, dressed in prison orange and with his brown hair in a ponytail, spoke at length about September 11 being an inside job, his ex-wife being replaced by a body double, and his government-provided attorneys conspiring against him. “I’m a psychic,” DePape told the court, reading from sheets of paper. “The more I meditate, the more psychic I get.” In a letter read in court by the victim’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, Paul Pelosi called for the maximum sentence, saying the “last peaceful sleep” he had ended abruptly “when the defendant violently broke into my home, burst into my bedroom and stood over my bed with a hammer and zip ties demanding to see my wife, yelling: ‘Where’s Nancy?’” He said the attack had left him with bumps on his head, a metal plate in it, dizziness and nerve damage in his left hand. Sleeping alone at home evokes memories of the attack, he said.

MAGA criminal David DePape sentenced to life in prison for his role in conducting hammer attack on Paul Pelosi.

[offender42085]

Post 1030

Richard Sepolio, California inmate, born 1992, incarceration intake in May 2019 at age 26, released November 2020

DUI Manslaughter, DUI causing injury

In November 2020, a 28-year-old former inmate, who was released in early after serving less than three years (including jail and prison confinements) of a nearly 10-year sentence, partially because of the COVID pandemic. Sepolio also received a reduced sentence for good behavior and for working in a prison fire camp.

He was involved in a DUI crash on October 15, 2016, a crash that killed Annamarie Contreras, 50, and Cruz Contreras, 52, a married couple from Chandler, Arizona; and Hacienda Heights residents Andre Banks, 49, and Francine Jimenez, 46.

When it was announced Sepolio would be released, San Diego County District Attorney, Summer Stephan said, “This very early release is unconscionable''.

Stephan further stated, "Department of Corrections decision is re-victimizing the family and friends of the four people killed and seven injured who have been devastated by their loss and continue to deal with the financial, emotional, mental and physical trauma caused by the defendant. This inmate continues to deny and minimize the crime by refusing to admit he was speeding and denying being impaired while arguing with his girlfriend on the phone, which resulted in the devastating crash.''

In addition to having drinks prior to getting behind the wheel, Sepolio was arguing with his girlfriend on the phone just moments before losing control of his truck on the bridge, the prosecutor said.

Sepolio testified he was driving on the transition ramp -- a route back to Coronado that he had driven more than 90 times before -- when he sped up to merge in front of another car and lost control.

Prosecutors said he was driving between 81 and 87 mph when the crash occurred.  His truck plunged over the Coronado Bridge in October 2016. It dropped about 60 feet onto crowded Chicano Park. 

In May 2023, the inmate petitioned the court. He sought to have his parole terminated early and his convictions for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and DUI causing injury erased through a new law that allows inmate firefighters an expedited path to purging their criminal records.

The law, which went into effect in 2023, aims to provide a smoother path for formerly incarcerated volunteer firefighters to obtain employment. Inmates released from custody can now apply for such relief if they successfully complete fire camp and judges can grant those requests if the expungement is found to be “in the interest of justice.”

While now discharged from the Navy, he elected to wear his Navy Uniform in his court proceeding.

This was his second attempt after the first attempt was denied earlier by the court. The second petition was denied.

3g

Last reviewed August 2024

[theserpentsadvocate]

So I’ve been doing a lot of research (or, more accurately, I’ve been doing cursory research fairly often) for the seventy-million Veronica Mars fanfics I’m currently writing, and I’ve run into a… difficulty. The fic that actually prompted this post wasn’t even related to the Thumper thing even peripherally, like it doesn’t even happen in it, but what can you do.

Here’s the thing: under California law, assault is the attempt to hurt or cause harm to someone by an individual with the capacity to actually cause that harm (e.g. throwing a rock at someone and missing, trying to punch someone who dodges). Actually harming someone is battery (e.g. you knock someone out and hide their drug money inside their motorcycle).

Now we, the audience, know that whatever someone might feel morally*, Weevil isn’t legally guilty of murder – he committed battery, and that’s probably all Lamb can prove, because he has witnesses to that part. But he has witnesses. He should have Weevil over a barrel on the battery charge at least.

But here’s the sticking point (or one of them): Veronica says, canonically, that Weevil ‘pled down to assault’ (and he seems to agree with her). So… why did he end up doing time for a lesser charge?

Answer One: The writers messed up.

Okay, so this is a very unsatisfying answer, and I’m rolling my eyes at myself about it. But still: it’s very common for the general public to gloss ‘assault and battery’ as one thing, or to use ‘assault’ to refer to battery charges, doubly so since, in a non-legal sense, the word ‘assault’ does include (legal) battery. Probably whoever wrote that line assumed that they knew what ‘assault’ was and just didn’t double-check.

(And they also didn’t bother to brush up on the difference between a felony and a misdemeanour and whether you can be on parole for a misdemeanour (answer: no), but I’ll get to that.)

But that doesn’t help square everything up with canon (unless you’re the kind of person who can say stuff like ‘that line doesn’t make sense so I’m ignoring it’, which I… am not, generally speaking), so more productively –

Answer Two: Veronica messed up

Veronica’s attitude toward Weevil isn’t always great in season three, trending towards dismissive on several occasions, and she is, technically, a member of the general public, so maybe she just said assault and meant battery, and he did go to prison for battery and not assault. This would track with him still being on parole – well, at all, but notably about halfway through season three, when Veronica wants to meet with the PCHers – and mentioning his parole officer multiple times. (Simple assault is a misdemeanour and has a maximum sentence of six months; parole, unless there is a glaring hole in my Googling, is only for felonies. Nothing he does to Thumper, as far as I can tell, would qualify as felony assault – he doesn’t use caustic chemicals or a deadly weapon, and he definitely doesn’t throw anything at a moving vehicle.)

Misdemeanour battery, on the other hand, appears to have a maximum sentence of a year, and a battery charge would leave the possibility of a felony open: aggravated battery, or battery causing serious bodily harm, is a ‘wobbler’, which means it can be filed as a misdemeanour or a felony, depending on the circumstances, and ‘serious bodily harm’ includes loss of consciousness. (This would also mean he very well could be a convicted felon, which of course has implications for the rest of his life beyond just having a record. I don’t actually want this for him, obviously, but if you want the felony for fic reasons, or to explain the repeated parole references, that versatility is there.)

The only problem is, Veronica is not a very likely person to make this particular mistake. Her dad spent most of her life in law enforcement and she’s very well-acquainted with most law enforcement (and much legal) procedure, she regularly interacts with the sheriff’s department, and she commits enough illegal and dubiously legal acts herself that it’s in her best interest to be familiar with these kinds of distinctions. (Although she’s still very much protected by being a middle-class white woman – she can do things like tasing obnoxious frat bros in The Rapes of Graff without worrying overmuch that she’ll be arrested on misdemeanour battery charges, even though it would absolutely qualify.)  Also, she clearly made the effort to look into how his case played out, since she’s the one who brings all this up, and she appears to have tracked him down at the car wash deliberately, so it would be kind of bizarre if she then got the offence wrong. This one is convenient, but in the end it’s a hard sell and I don’t think I buy it.

Answer Three: Weevil didn’t plead down from murder to assault, he pled down from battery to assault.

Lamb’s case for murder probably isn’t all that great. It makes for terrific oomph when you are deliberately arresting someone two minutes before he’s supposed to graduate, like an absolute monster, but what does he have, really? Two kids who saw Weevil knock Thumper out with… a cloth? Or something? and take a bag of… something. (And leave.)

So this proves battery, it strongly implies robbery, and given Thumper showing up under the ruins of Shark Stadium it certainly suggests murder, but that’s not going to stand up in court. Assuming the autopsy can conclusively determine which ones are from the stadium collapse and which aren’t (admittedly a big if), Thumper’s likely to have injuries from the beating the Fitzpatricks gave him that Weevil is (per the prosecution’s own witnesses) not responsible for and which were incurred after his attack on Thumper. The kids also saw him leave Thumper’s unconscious body and walk away with the bag of money, so – dead to rights on battery, but iffy on murder. The other PCHers can testify that he had motive to kill Thumper, but they might well not be willing to, for a whole host of reasons. Weevil is absolutely smart enough to establish himself an alibi for the entirety of the time after his attack on Thumper, and that would make Lamb’s case very difficult, as does that fact that Weevil literally didn’t kill Thumper, and so there’s very little forensic evidence to be found that would be damaging to him.

(Honestly, even if the charge was murder, and he pled down to assault or to battery, the fact that they offered him that also suggests the case was flimsy. Rich, white, even-more-innocent-of-the-actual-murder Logan only got offered manslaughter in the plea deal for Felix’s murder.)

So if this is it? That is a ton of reasonable doubt. And that’s before Cliff gets up there and points out that Eduardo Orozco was a known gang member and drug dealer and had all kinds of opportunities to make the kind of enemies who might have chained him up in that stadium (which is not only true but also… basically what did actually happen). In fact, typing this all up, I’m kind of pissed Weevil did any time at all.

Add to that the fact that both eyewitnesses are kids, who are notoriously unreliable on the stand… Yeah, I can easily see the DA deciding a murder charge won’t stick. But they have him on battery! …Wiiiith most of the proof being those notoriously unreliable child witnesses. So maybe they drop the murder charges, get him on battery, and then offer him a deal. On their side, they don’t have to worry about those kids holding up in court; on his side, well, if they threatened to file the aggravated battery charge as a felony, he’s looking at the difference between a year at most in prison and a possible four-year term with all the attendant miseries of being a convicted felon for the rest of his life. And he definitely can’t afford a better lawyer than whoever’s available from the public defender’s office. So it’s reasonable to decide that going to court is too much of a gamble, and just take the deal. This also explains how he’s out so quickly, since it cannot be more than three months since he was arrested when season three starts – but if he pled right away and got a light sentence (since it’s his first adult conviction), that might make sense.

The main problem with this one, even though I really like it, is that, well, there are the repeated references to him being on parole. Weevil himself could just be glossing probation as parole, I suppose – ‘don’t tell my parole officer’ makes a better joke than ‘don’t tell my probation officer’ – but Veronica also says he’s on parole in President Evil, which is an unlikely mistake for her to make if he’s not on parole, for all the reasons outlined in Answer Two, especially in what is literally a presentation for her criminology class. (Of course, in that same presentation she refers to him ‘assaulting’ Thumper, so who knows.) Most damning is the entire B-plot of Wichita Linebacker, which makes it clear he is indeed on parole, since if he doesn’t get another job he’ll go back to prison.

(And I suppose ‘pled down to assault’ is kind of a weird way for Veronica to phrase it in this case – but not utterly bizarre, and she’d be unlikely to spell it all out like that, since she doesn’t know she’s on TV and that line is supposed to be letting the audience know why he’s not in prison.)

Answer Four: Veronica was just guessing

I’ve always read the scene in Wichita Linebacker as her finding him on purpose, especially since she doesn’t actually stick around to get her car washed, which is why I also tend to assume that she’s either recently looked up his case or been following it from the beginning and would know what the charge is. (She doesn’t appear to be surprised to see him, either.) I also just… like to think that she’d care enough to follow up on him.

But it’s also possible that she really is just at the carwash for carwash-related reasons, and she’s just… guessing about the reasons he’s out already. In this case, she might have said assault, and he acknowledges this as correct even though the actual charge was battery, because he figures it’s close enough, and she’s got the general idea, anyway.

This covers more bases than anything else, although it still doesn’t explain why she implies he’s on parole for an assault charge during the criminology presentation, at which point she would definitely have done the background to know it was battery and not assault, but mostly I don’t love it for character reasons.

Anyway. If anyone wants to hit their heads repeatedly into this particular wall with me, I would love to hear your thoughts.

*and I’m inclined, personally, to say that the moral responsibility for Thumper’s death is pretty much on the Fitzpatricks, and it’s not like he didn’t know who he was getting into business with

[beardedmrbean]

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Idaho serial killer Thomas Eugene Creech's last-minute request for a stay of execution.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan issued the decision to deny Creech's request Wednesday morning, clearing the way for prison authorities to carry out his execution by lethal injection.

Attorneys for the 73-year-old Creech, Idaho's longest-serving death row inmate, had filed a certiorari petition that the High Court halt the execution to give the panel time to review the decision by the Idaho Supreme Court denying Creech's appeals.

"The application for a stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied," the ruling said. "The edition for a write of certiorari is denied."

Barring a last-minute reprieve by Idaho Gov. Brad Little, Creech will become the first person executed in Idaho in 12 years.

Little has already said he has "zero intention" of halting the execution at Idaho Maximum Security Institution near Boise.

"Thomas Creech is a convicted serial killer responsible for acts of extreme violence," Little said in a statement issued on Jan. 29. "His lawful and just sentence must be carried out as ordered by the court. Justice has been delayed long enough."

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Creech's attorneys argued that his due process rights were violated by the Idaho Supreme Court.

"Mr. Creech has identified a substantial need for guidance from the Court on an issue of great national importance and he has brought a strong vehicle for it to do so," Creech's attorney wrote in the petition, asking for "clarity on [the] question of when a state's post-conviction regime affords little meaningful review to legitimate federal constitutional claims that it violates due process."

The petition added, "There are strong reasons to suspect that at least some states have gone too far in limiting post-conviction review, thus calling for the Court's intervention."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco also denied Creech's latest appeal in a ruling issued Saturday, prompting attorneys for the condemned man to take their argument to the Supreme Court.

Creech, according to prosecutors, has been convicted of five murders in three states, including three committed in Idaho.

In a 1993 opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court denying an appeal filed by Creech, late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "Creech admitted to killing or participating in the killing of at least 26 people."

"The bodies of 11 of his victims -- who were shot, stabbed, beaten, or strangled to death -- have been recovered in seven states," she said.

The last murder Creech pleaded guilty to occurred in 1981 at an Idaho maximum security prison when he killed 23-year-old David Dale Jensen, a disabled fellow inmate, by beating him to death with a sock filled with batteries, according to prosecutors. At the time of Jensen's slaying, Creech was serving two life sentences for a double murder he committed in Idaho and had been convicted of murders in California and Oregon.

Creech argued in his recent appeal that his due process rights were violated by the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole and the Ada County, Idaho, Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

At the commutation hearing in October, Ada County deputy prosecutor Jill Longhurst told the commission that Creech is a "sociopath" who has "utter disregard for human life."

"Mr. Creech is a serial killer, and in 1981 said he would kill again, and he did," Longhurst told the commission. "Thomas Creech is the most prolific serial killer in Idaho."

[calparolelawyer]

Maximizing Your Chances with a Prop. 57 Parole Lawyer

Navigating the complexities of the California parole system can be daunting. With the implementation of Proposition 57, which focuses on rehabilitation and reducing prison populations, the role of a skilled attorney has never been more critical.

Understanding Proposition 57

Proposition 57 was enacted to promote rehabilitation for inmates and reduce the state's prison population. It is vital to understand its implications on parole hearings and eligibility requirements. A skilled Prop 57 parole attorney can make a significant difference in your chances of success at your parole hearing, while a dedicated Prop. 57 parole lawyer ensures your case is presented effectively before the board.

The Importance of Legal Representation

Having experienced legal representation can significantly impact the outcome of your parole hearing. A knowledgeable lawyer can help articulate your case, ensuring that your efforts towards rehabilitation are properly highlighted. They can guide you through the legal process, making it less overwhelming and more manageable.

Crafting a Strong Parole Case

A successful parole case hinges on presenting compelling evidence of your rehabilitation. This includes participation in programs, educational achievements, and personal development. Your attorney will work with you to gather the necessary documentation, presenting a robust argument to the parole board.

Navigating the Parole Hearing Process

Trust a knowledgeable California parole hearing lawyer to guide you through this crucial process. The parole hearing is a critical step in your journey. Understanding the format and what to expect can ease your anxiety. Your lawyer will prepare you for potential questions, helping you present your case confidently. They will advocate for you, ensuring your voice is heard during the hearing.

Future Possibilities with a Parole Lawyer

Engaging a Prop. 57 parole attorney opens up new possibilities. Their expertise can maximize your chances of a favorable outcome. With their guidance, you can navigate the complexities of the parole system, significantly increasing your chances of success.

Final thoughts We specialize in helping individuals understand and navigate the parole process. At Cal Parole Lawyer, our dedicated team is here to ensure you receive the best possible representation, focusing on your unique circumstances.

[lunas-nargle]

↳ fifteen

chapter fifteen of "meddle about" series brian o'connor x reader

xv. sentenced

At the end of the day, Dom still ended up in handcuffs. 

Y/n sat between Brian and Mia as they waited for the judge to sentence Dom. Monty sat beside Mia, holding her hand soothingly, Y/n holding the other tightly, as they tensely stood up as instructed, watching the judge walk to his seat. 

"Please be seated." someone said, letting everyone sit back down. Brian put his arm around the back of Y/n, trying to provide some comfort to her. 

"Please rise, Mr. Toretto," the judge said. Dom silently stood. "I've listened to the testimony...and taken into special consideration...Agent O'Conner's appeal of clemency on behalf of Mr. Toretto, that his actions directly resulted in the apprehension of known drug trafficker, Arturo Braga." Y/n felt her stomach and lungs squeeze as the judge continued. "However, this judiciary finds that one right does not make up for a lifetime of wrongs," 

Y/n let out a shaky breath. Hearing this, Brian moved his arm that was wrapped around Y/n. 

"And as such I find that I am forced to level the maximum sentence under California law." 

Brian couldn't hear anymore. He stood up, and walked off upset. 

"Dominic Toretto," the judge said, as a tear slid down Y/n's cheek. "You are hearby sentenced to serve 25 years to life at the Lompoc maximum security prison system without the possibility of early parole. This court is adjourned."

[science-criticaltheory]

How Trump might target DACA recipients and other immigrant groups - Jean Lantz Reisz

Donald Trump shows immigration charts during the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2024. Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

There are 11 million people living without legal authorization in the U.S., and Trump would have the authority, as president, to deport those people. But it would be very expensive to pay for the immigration officers, immigration judges, detention facilities, the plane flights and more that would be required to do so. Estimates on the cost of mass deportation range from US$88 billion a year to more than $300 billion.

The administration is probably going to have to rely on state and local governments to help carry out these deportations. The president cannot legally force state and local governments to cooperate with immigration enforcement. About 10 states, including New York, Massachusetts and California, have laws that prohibit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE – the federal agency that oversees immigration and deportation – under certain circumstances.

For example, in California, employers may not allow ICE to enter nonpublic areas of their workplace without a proper warrant. Other states also prohibit law enforcement from sharing the immigration status of certain low-level criminal offenders.

The federal government could give more money to a state in order to help it cooperate with federal immigration efforts, and take it away if they do not cooperate. But federal case law says that the president does not have the authority to withhold federal money to coerce a state into cooperating with immigration actions.

Could Trump still send federal immigration officers to a state that does not cooperate, in order to identify and detain immigrants?

States could not prevent the federal government from coming in to arrest and deport people – but they don’t have to help them, and could set up some obstacles. The federal government would have to provide all of its own personnel. Texas and Arizona have recently approved laws that require local law enforcement to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security and enforce immigration law.

The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to deputize and train local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

ICE could rely on local sheriffs or police in some states, like Texas, to identify and arrest immigrants and turn them over to ICE to deport. In other states, like Oregon and Illinois, that want to protect immigrants from deportation, they can refuse to cooperate with federal authorities by not providing certain personal information on immigrants.

What are the other risks immigrants might be concerned about?

There are about 580,000 people who are living in the U.S. and are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. DACA gives some people who came to the U.S. illegally as children the right to legally work, go to school and live in the country. The courts have already litigated that a president can lawfully terminate DACA through a certain process.

Currently, President Joe Biden is defending DACA by appealing a Texas district court decision that DACA is an unlawful program. Once in office, Trump can instruct the Justice Department to dismiss the appeal, effectively ending DACA.

People who apply for DACA have to state in their application that they are in the country unlawfully. So the government could prove that DACA recipients can legally be deported, and will have information on where they live.

The next group of immigrants that could be targeted is people from Afghanistan and other countries who have humanitarian parole, which is temporary permission to remain in the U.S. legally. Trump can end all of the parole programs, including those for Ukrainians.

In addition, Trump can end Temporary Protected Status, a law that gives temporary permission to some people to legally stay in the U.S. for up to two years because of an emergency situation in their countries. He tried to do this, but was unsuccessful, during his first administration because he didn’t follow the right legal process. About 1.2 million people are covered under this program, which Biden expanded.

Trump has said he would end birthright citizenship, which is the right for any person born in the country to get citizenship. Could he legally do this?

The Trump administration could order federal officials to stop processing passports and Social Security numbers for people who cannot establish that their parents are U.S. citizens. An ensuing lawsuit, probably brought by individuals denied their documents, would force courts to weigh in on birthright citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives the right of citizenship to all people born in the U.S. regardless of their parents’ nationality. Challengers to birthright citizenship argue that the Fourteenth Amendment should be reinterpreted to exclude people who were born in the U.S. to parents who are present unlawfully and therefore without the consent of the U.S. government.

To succeed in overturning birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court would have to reverse a 126-year-old precedent, which states that anyone who is born on U.S. soil and not the child of someone engaged in diplomatic service is a U.S. citizen.

Trump has talked about using the Alien Enemies Act as a way to deport people. What does this mean?

Trump has talked about using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as a way to get around judicial review and immigration courts and deport people such as gang members and cartel members. This law allows a president, during a time of war, to detain and deport people born in an enemy nation.

One problem with this is that Trump won’t have the authority to deport people under this act, unless there is a war with or invasion by another nation or government. Gangs or cartels are not their own nation or government. For example, Trump could not simultaneously recognize the Mexican government and a cartel also as the government of Mexico – or succeed in legally proving the Mexican government is sending cartel members to invade the U.S. on behalf of the Mexican government.

Another problem Trump would have in using the Alien Enemies Act is that it allows for review by the courts to determine whether an individual is actually an “enemy alien.” It would not likely provide an automatic shortcut to deportation and would end up in litigation.

[roadtogracelandx45]

New York State of Mind |1| Suits x Sons crossover

I am so nervous about posting this after some reviews that I got about Ryder. But here we go;

crossposted on ao3 and wattpad.

Introduction 

Tacoma Washington 

For the first time in over 4 years Ryder Teller was able to travel for work without having a Sons' sitter go with her and she was thrilled, everywhere she went after she graduated law school and was in Tacoma, she had a Son with her. She went to Chino to see her brother or to see her sister-in-law and the kids, a Son went with her. She went into the office, a Son went with her.

A lot of the time it was Kozik or Happy but they were both unable to leave the state due to their parole status and Ryder was thankful for that, she needed to be a different Ryder, one that didn't bend to the will of her old man and as much as Jax wanted to override her going out there he couldn't, she had made a valid point, he was able to do what he wanted and could come and go as he pleased, but she couldn't? She had been faithful to him since they got together.

That double standard should never be around, but she lived in a very black-and-white man's world and what they said went and it was exhausting. She was exhausted and she just didn't know that until Jessica Pearce asked for her to come out and work with them.

"You know Jax is furious right?" Kozik commented from where he was sitting on the chair in front of Ryder's vanity, "That you are going, and you aren't listening to him." Ryder paused as she was folding up the shirt to put in her suitcase.

"I don't think that I should have to listen to him Koz, "She started, "I am not putting my career on hold again to appease him. If he and Clay want me to help the club out I have to make friends at other law firms in other states. What would happen if you guys went on the run and got in trouble? I have my law license in California, Washington, and New York. I can't do it anymore." She shoved her hands through her hair and fought back tears.

Kozik knew that she was right and that she had more hurt than joy since she became Jax's old lady. He remembered holding her as she cried her eyes out when she found that she had miscarried a baby when she first moved to Tacoma after Jax cheated on her again with Tara. This wasn't the Ryder that he knew when she was younger, this was a broken Ryder. A completely broken Ryder.

"Shouldn’t I be able to be happy to Koz? He is making himself happy.  I don't know if I can keep doing this every single time. " She pointed a trembling finger to the blackberry sitting on top of the folding clothes. It had gone off several times while they were talking and they both assumed that it was Jax trying to get into contact with her

 and talk her out of going to New York again. He had done everything short of showing up at the house and handcuffing himself to her. And being on probation he was unable to go with her to New York for the three months she had been loaned out to them. And it was driving him crazy.

"You are right." He started as he held up his hands not wanting to set her off. 

"I know I am god damn right Herman. I get that I was born into this lifestyle and it's a man's world. But I should never ever be subjected to live like this." She reached across the bed, yanking the phone off of her belongings, and pressed the green answer button, "WHAT do you want!" she snarled, causing the biker to lean back in his chair in surprise. In all the years that he had known the younger Winston sibling, she had never reacted like that before.

To anyone. 

Not even Tara Knowles who justifiably earned every single ounce of hatred that Ryder held towards her.  There was so much hate, so much bitterness. No amount of sweet-talking or promises on the Mother Charter's vice president's part was going to do anything to make her forgive him. 

And honestly, he didn't deserve it. It had finally happened. She had enough and was tired of being broken 

"Look, I am probably gonna catch hell for this but, Jax is coming up tonight after church to talk to you about staying." He started once she was off of the phone, the angry tears coming down her cheeks, "If I were you, I would get on an earlier flight."

Ryder abandoned all packing and picked up her phone and pressed a few buttons and put her phone to her ear. "Hey, Donna, It's Ryder Teller, is there a way you can get me on an earlier flight out? My brother told me not to come down today to see him and the sooner I get out of Washington the better." She was silent for several long minutes before speaking again, "Yes, I can be ready in 30 minutes to go." Donna Paulson, Harvey Specter's assistant, had already been told to get a private plane and driver set up for Ryder Teller. Jessica Pearson and her other partners wanted Ryder Teller to be a part of their firm.

"Thank you, Donna." She hung up the phone and looked at the blonde biker, "Thank you Koz, I know you aren't supposed to tell me stuff like this." He waved it away, "Finish packing what you absolutely need, and then go shopping for the rest when you get there." She wiped her cheek off again and started putting the rest of the clothes that she brought out of her closet into the suitcase.

"What are you going to tell Jax when he shows up?" She asked as Kozik carried her suitcase and carry on to the awaiting black car a while later. "Don't worry about it, Ry. I will handle it." He returned, "Just do stuff for yourself this time around, make yourself happy, that's

 all I can ask for."

"I can do that.' She returned, "Don't know what it looks like but I will find out." His mouth quirked into a smirk, he wanted to tell her to do what Jax did to her and sleep with someone else but he knew that Ryder wouldn't do it. But maybe she would surprise him. She always seemed to.

[latenightsleuth]

The Jenner Beach Murders 2004

Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen Murders: How Were They Killed? Where is Shaun Gallon Now?

By Viswa Vanapalli at The Cinemaholic March 29, 2021

Investigation Discovery’s ‘People Magazine Investigates’ is a documentary series where People Magazine’s journalists team up with Investigation Discovery to have a second look at some of the most high-profile cases in the country. The episode ‘Jenner Beach Murders’ explores the random killings of a loving couple who were camping out on a beach in Jenner, California, in 2004. A case that stumped investigators at the time with an apparent lack of motive, it was only solved in 2017 after a confession. Curious to know more about the case? We’ve got you covered.

How Did Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen Die?

Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen had met each other in 2002 at the Appalachian Bible College in Beckley, West Virginia. Both devout Christians, the 22-year-old Lindsay hailed from Fresno, Ohio, while the 26-year-old Jason was from Zeeland, Michigan. They fell in love quickly, bonding over their Christian faith and their fondness for the outdoors. Within six weeks of knowing each other, they were engaged. In August 2004, the couple was working as counselors at Rock-N-Water, which was a Christian summer camp close to Coloma, California.

On August 13, they decided to take a spontaneous road trip to San Francisco, about a month before their planned wedding. It was during this trip that they would end up missing and eventually killed. When Lindsay’s mother was notified that the couple had not returned from their road trip, an extensive manhunt ensued. About five days after they left for their road trip, the couple was found by a helicopter pilot on a secluded part of Fish Head Beach, Jenner, California.

They were found still zipped up in their sleeping bags and were shot in the head once with a .45 caliber Marlin rifle, a rather uncommon gun. Police quickly ruled out robbery as a motive since Lindsay’s jewelry wasn’t missing and the car they traveled in was still there. There were no signs of a sexual assault either. Beyond that, the authorities were finding it difficult to zero in on a motive. The time of death was estimated to be either on the night of August 14 or the early morning of August 15.

The investigators speculated that the couple might have chosen to camp at the beach after realizing that there were no available rooms at the motel close by. As time passed, the police started to run out of credible leads. With no motive and unable to find the murder weapon, the trail ran cold. It was more than a decade later when the murders of Lindsay and Jason would be solved.

Who Killed Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen?

Shaun Gallon had long been someone the police had looked into regarding the couple’s killing. A self-proclaimed survivalist, he had multiple run-ins with the law. In fact, he was arrested just six days after the bodies were discovered, but on an unrelated weapons charge. Shaun’s father, David, had also told police that he had disposed of his son’s guns after Shaun had called him from prison to do so. In 2009, Shaun was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for shooting a man with a homemade bow and arrow. Over the years, the police found nothing to tie him to the murders, nonetheless.

In 2017, Shaun was accused of killing his brother, Shamus, with a rifle and was arrested as a result of that. During his questioning, he confessed to the killings of Lindsay and Jason. He told the police where he had hidden the spent shell casings from the crime scene. He stated that after he noticed the two sleeping on the beach, he went to his car to bring his rifle, came back, and shot them both at close range. He had also confessed to the attempted murder of someone else that he knew. In 2019, 40-year-old Shaun was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Where is Shaun Gallon Now?

Shaun Gallon pleaded no contest to all the charges against him. As a result, the death penalty was not pursued. For his role in the murders of Lindsay, Jason, and Shamus and the attempted murder charge, he was instead sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. He also was sentenced to more than 94 years for other crimes. During his confession, he had told the police that he had killed Lindsay and Jason out of spite.

A news release from the Office of the District Attorney mentioned additional charges, “There were multiple special allegations and enhancements alleged against Gallon, including that he murdered multiple victims, that he committed great bodily injury on those victims, that he used a firearm to inflict great bodily injury on each of his murder victims, and that he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction in 2009 for assault with a deadly weapon. In his change of pleas, Gallon admitted all charges and enhancements.” According to prison records, Shaun is incarcerated at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California.

Full article: https://thecinemaholic.com/lindsay-cutshall-and-jason-allen-murders-how-were-they-killed-where-is-shaun-gallon-now/

[hoperays-song]

The Gang’s Jail Sentences

I should preface this with my favourite lovely warning: I AM NOT A BOARD CERTIFIED ATTORNEY OF LAW. I do NOT have a degree in this. I have done research, yes, and come up with somewhat of a defense and timeline but still, I AM NOT A LAWYER. I’m just a hyperfixated idiot. Enjoy!

----------------------

During the events of Sing One we see Johnny’s family/the Gang commit several crimes. However, they are only caught after one failed heist. So, I will be calculating the charges they faced as well as providing possible defenses and my version of sentencing. Everyone ready for a ton of legal mumbo jumbo? Great! Let’s dive in.

Ps. I’m so sorry for the delay y’all, I know I promised this a long time ago but I really wanted to do it right. I hope y’all enjoy!

----------------------

Definitions:

I wasn’t kidding when I said their would be actual legal vocabulary here so let’s go over what it all means.

Wobbler: a special class of crimes involving conduct that varies widely in its level of seriousness.

Misdemeanor: a non-indictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony.

Felony: a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death.

Parole: the release of a prisoner temporarily (for a special purpose) or permanently before the completion of a sentence, on the promise of good behavior.

County Jail: a facility operated by or for a county for the confinement of persons accused or convicted of an offense.

Sate Prison: is for inmates serving lengthier sentences on crimes that are more severe in nature.

Sentencing: declare the punishment decided for an offender.

----------------------

Crimes and Their Sentences:

Grand Theft Larceny - Wobbler (anywhere from less than a year in County Jail to 3 years in State Prison)

Wearing a Mask - Misdemeanor (up to 6 months in County Jail and a $1,000.00 fine)

Gang Involvement - Wobbler (anywhere from less than a year in County Jail to 3 years in State Prison)

Marcus Exclusively: 

Escape from Custody - Wobbler (anywhere from less than a year in County Jail to 3 years in State Prison with no parole)

----------------------

Maximum Sentencing vs. My Sentencing:

Max: 6 months in County Jail, $1000.00 each, 6 years in State Prison (plus 3 years in State Prison and no chance of parole for anything for Marcus).

My Sentencing: 7.5 months in County Jail, $1000.00 each, 2 years of formal parole, 400 hours of community service for Stan and Barry, and 490 hours of community service for Marcus. All of them also were ordered into court mandated counseling/therapy due to the results found by the court appointed psychologist for the enterity of their incarceration and parole.

----------------------

Explanation and Defenses Used:

Now, you all might notice that my sentencing was much, much, much lighter than the maximum sentence. However, that is because I believe they were not prosecuted for some of the potential charges and they also were allowed parole in change of some of their sentence.

Firstly, I do not think they would be prosecuted for Gang Involvement, mainly due to they barely qualifying as a gang by California State Law. By their definition, a gang is:

“a criminal street gang is any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal: 1. That has a common name or common identifying sign or symbol; 2. That has, as one or more of its primary activities, the commission of [a crime listed in Pen. Code §186.22(e)(1)-(25), (31)-(33)]; AND, 3. Whose members, whether acting alone or together, engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.””.

Now why wouldn’t they be prosecuted for this? We see them fitting those descriptions after all. And while we saw those defining actions, the prosecutors definitely didn’t. 

We see how criminally smart the gang actually is multiple times in the movie. For one, we never see them try to physically confront anyone that tried to stop them, they just ran. That allows them to avoid all the potential aggravated assault on peace officers charges. 

Secondly, when they are captured, they immediately surrendered, no fighting, no running, they immediately surrendered. This allows them to escape literally all evading the police charges as well as them instantly being marked as cooperative, which is extremely useful in their case. 

Third, they seem to move fast. In the first heist we see them pull off, the alarm does not start ringing until they break the window. Now, why would that mean they move fast? Banks and jewelry stores both have something called silent alarms that can be subtly triggered by staff in case of a robbery. Judging by the obliviousness of the nearby officers, that alarm was not triggered. Meaning, no one knew that the gang was there until they were escaping. In fact, it’s hinted that the main heist we see is the longest one yet. Judging by how down to the second everything is planned, they were a bit more nervous about this heist than the other ones. And most of that time is traveling discretely so they aren’t caught. Not only do they see to move fast, they seem to be non-violent offenders.

Finally, the fact that there were only three of them (they clearly covered for Johnny, he wasn’t even shown to be questioned so they definitely denied his involvement) and they view each other like brothers, they definitely denied being a gang and instead identified themselves as brothers who committed a crime together. Also, Johnny wasn’t recognized by the Bear Gang (to be fair they were busy, but still) and you would think he would if have been if he was viewed by other gangs as the son of a rival gang leader. Therefore, I believe their actually identity as a gang was not that solid and they weren’t seen as one in a court of law. And that lightened their sentence considerably.

In the case of the other crimes, I think that Marcus’s escape and the Grand Theft Larceny were both demoted to misdemeanors. Why? Because in the eyes of the court, they are first time offenders. From what we can tell, they were not linked back to their previous crimes, and therefore I will not be calculating that into my sentencing. Sentences for first time offenders (in some cases) are considerably lighter and I think that was part of the case here. 

The rest of the case here is public opinion. Your court sentence is largely based on what the judge deems appropriate. And public opinion can definitely influence that by swaying the judge’s view on the case. The thing is, the public of Calatonia would definitely be on the gang’s side. Why? Because Johnny, that’s why.

Johnny would have just appeared on tv as a performer at New Moon Theatre and as we saw, he drew in a bit of a crowd during his performance during the ending scene. Those fans would definitely want Johnny to be reunited with his dad sooner and could petition the court for a lighter sentence. Not only would his fans potentially influence the sentencing, but Johnny’s mere existence would too.

From what we can tell, Marcus is a single parent. And while Stan and Barry might lend a hand here and there with helping him with Johnny, Marcus is clearly doing majority of the parenting work. Whether his other parent is dead or just divorced, it’s clear that Johnny doesn’t see living with them as an option (he chose to stay in the garage alone). Why is this important? Because Johnny’s primary caregiver (Marcus) and his two other caregivers who he’d probably be sent to in an emergency (Stan and Barry) are now all incarcerated. That means that Johnny (he is implied to be around 17 in Sing 1 so that’s what I’m going with) would be sent to foster care. And if Johnny had happened to recently gone through a traumatic event, like for instance, just throwing it out there, being trapped in a flooding building, or having all of his family be sent to jail, he would more than likely be evaluated by a psychologist to see what the potential effects of sentencing could have on him.

I don’t think it would surprise anyone if I said that I believe that the psychologist would more than likely decide that Johnny would be negatively affected mentally and emotionally if he was kept from his family the full maximum sentence. What kid wouldn’t be? That, along with the gang being non-violent, first time offenders who had (in the court’s eye) been just every day citizens til then, they would have more than likely been given lighter sentences that would have resulted in their release a few weeks before the events of Sing 2, around only a year later.