TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

JJVP wrote:

WildBill wrote:He may not be innocent, but he was not guilty of this crime. That is what counts.

Maybe, but depending on his two previous strikes, maybe he should have been in jail to begin with. Too many criminals are let go with a slap on the wrist, just so they can go back into crime. Not knowing the specific details of his previous record is hard to judge one way or another.

Wow. So once you commit one crime you're just automatically guilty of any other you are charged with? I don't want to live in your world.

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JJVP wrote:He might have been not guilty, but not sure he was that innocent. Looks like this was not his first dance.

28-years-to-life under California's Three Strikes Law

In July 2008, the California Innocence Project filed a habeas petition in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. One year later, the court held an evidentiary hearing in which three witnesses testified as to Daniel's innocence. Among the witnesses were the Chief of Police and his wife. After a hearing on the matter, the federal court found not only that Daniel was innocent but also that his trial attorney's representation was constitutionally deficient in failing to call these witnesses at the time of his trial.

I'd say he was innocent.

He may not be innocent, but he was not guilty of this crime. That is what counts.

28-years-to-life under California's Three Strikes Law