Murdoch vs Castro (Judge Dissent) (Do you agree?)

[Banana Jelly]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If it wasn’t for bad luck, Murdoch wouldn’t have no luck at all. He’s wakin’ up this mornin’ in jail when there’s strong proof he ain’t done nothing wrong. I would certainly defer to a jury’s contrary verdict if it had seen this evidence and convicted Murdoch after a fair trial, presided over by a fair judge, followed by an appeal where the justices considered all of his constitutional claims. But Murdoch had none of these.
Start with the trial judge: He was so worried that the prosecution couldn’t put on sufficient evidence to convict Murdoch that he sentenced Murdoch’s alleged confederate (Dinardo) to life in prison, but promised to give him a big break if he testified against Murdoch. True to his word, right after Dinardo fingered Murdoch, and as Murdoch’s jury was retiring to deliberate, the judge rewarded Dinardo by reducing his life sentence to a walk-away twelve years — or, as Dinardo himself estimated, actual time served of about five years.
Put yourself in Dinardo’s shoes: You’ve just been sentenced to spend the rest of your days behind bars, never again to hold your infant daughter in your arms. But the judge immediately dangles the promise of leaving prison and resuming a normal life before she turns eight, if only you help nail Murdoch. Prosecutors are known to offer defendants a break if they testify truthfully against a co-defendant. For a judge to goad someone he’s just given a life sentence into helping the prosecution by promising to give him his life back, but only if he helps finger the defendant, is judicial extortion. You’d have to be more than human not to do or say whatever it takes to grab that brass ring.
Not only did the trial judge strong-arm Dinardo into testifying, he prevented the defense from seeing — and so from using for cross-examination — a letter Dinardo had written a year earlier exculpating Murdoch and disclosing that the police had coerced Dinardo into making false accusations.

That is basically the dissent from the Murdoch vs Catro case. Did you agree with the dissent he had?


My opinion:


The criminal justice system always had a system called "Substantial Assistance" which is a downward departure of a sentence, which the Defendant being charged must help the Prosecution with a case by either giving information or testifying in-exchange for a downward departure.

This would be a perfect example of a case where substantial assistance departure was used on the other man, because of his testimony on Murdoch's case.

But the problem I am having with the case is that the "Substantial Assistance" clause is only for the defendant and prosecution and not for the Judge to encourage it in exchange for a reduced sentence. A Judges job in my opinion should just be to uphold justice, not to take sides with any party.




Any opinions on this? The whole opinion can be looked upon the 9th circuit.

I know law isn't very popular in this forum, but I took a try

[Jingles]

Huh? Rupert Murdoch vs. Fidel Castro? Or is this a different Murdoch and Castro lol

Could someone explain the background of this?

[Banana Jelly]

Huh? Rupert Murdoch vs. Fidel Castro? Or is this a different Murdoch and Castro lol

Could someone explain the background of this?

No lol. This is a habeas corpus case that was appealed to the circuit, where one person who was already convicted of murder, was encouraged by the judge to testify against murdoch for a reduced sentence of manslaughter. Then Murdoch wanted relief (habeas corpus) and was denied, and then he appealed the decision, and the circuit reversed the district court's decision and then he appealed again with this.

The problem in this habeas corpus proceeding is whether or not if Judges can encourage testifying against another defendant for a reduced sentence, and if he didn't would mean an increase of sentence. That is the problem being addressed. I explained my reason in my OP.