Allentown blogger Michael Molovinsky is reporting that Christopher Fitzgerald, who was acquitted earlier this week of charges filed in connection with a road rage incident involving two Lehigh County detectives, spurned an ARD offer on principle.
ARD, which stands for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, is a special program for first offenders under which charges will be dismissed and record expunged after the successful completion of a probationary period. The District Attorney has total discretion on deciding who is and is not eligible. The fact that he was willing to offer it here is an indication that he was aware that the case against Fitzgerald had its weaknesses. But it also demonstrates that he was trying to be fair.
By refusing this offer and insisting on a jury trial, Fitzgerald plunged into a world of uncertainty. Lots of things can happen in a jury trial. Most of them are bad for criminal defendants. He is a very lucky man.
I have also spoken to several criminal defense lawyers who have appeared in front of Judge Kelly Banach. To a man, they have told me they consider her very courteous and patient. Although the news accounts certainly made her look biased in my eyes, I was not there and I believe it is unfair of me to make that assessment without watching her in action.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Thursday, June 04, 2015
6 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
But Bernie, I believe you did argue she was biased, in a post visible from a few days ago. It sounds like now you are saying she appeared biased from reports you read, but you can't conclude she was.
ReplyDeleteIs this an apology of sorts? If so, should it be stronger?
It's not an apology. I stand by what I wrote, based on what I read. It's an attempt to be accurate, based on information from attorneys who have appeared before Judge Banach. Basically, it's an acknowledgement that I could very well be full of shot, something most of my readers already know. But I can't conclude I am wrong, either.
ReplyDeleteBetween what I've read here and in The Morning Call, the jury was split on the verdict until the very explanation that the defense lawyer had requested be made (but was denied by this judge) was made. Upon hearing the explanation, the jury decided unanimously. She may be courteous and patient, but she didn't look good on this one.
ReplyDeleteGood for him. The county detectives were out of line and a bit to drunk with their "badges." Why are they out policing anyway? Tailgating people? If they suspected something, call a Whitehall police marked car in and let them do their job. Bit to much cowboy at work here. The DA, their boss, covered their asses by letting this farce go to trial.
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem with the DA's, they not only pander to the police but will back up their own private faux police detectives when they screw up.
This was a screw up. Good for the jury and good for the defendant.
This entire episode had some stinky undercurrents to it and people are still talking about what may have really been behind all of this.
Gary W. Gorman opines:
ReplyDeleteI always thought (and still believe) that Kelly was/is an excellent prosecutor and a spot-on judge; fair, balanced, mostly neutral and bi-partisan. And for those questioning her bias because she is married to a retired police officer...sorry, Kelly, but Officer Rick is head and shoulders above your neutrality (IMHO, of course). To the naysayers...her (current) marriage did not sway her judgment.
But this case is a spot (albeit, a small one) on her career. I was more amused when she chastised the Allentown Police Chief for glad-handing in court when she campaigned as "Waldron" to win her election. It's a little too much of (ok, a lot) pot=kettle (using your resources to achieve your victory). And then, not giving the jury proper instructions... and then later demanding an apology from the defense...it's appears more of an inflated ego, rather than unbiased decisions.
But, I have watched Judge Banach's opinions and decisions over the years and she remains among the top of the crop.
Perhaps the DA offered ARD not to be "fair," but to try to avoid a trial that proved their investigators are lying bullies.
ReplyDelete