Wednesday Writs: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr Star in The People vs. Levi Weeks

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

17 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    WW1: Given the evidence, would that case even be prosecuted today?

    WW3: How the hell did he get a torpedo, or a tank, into his basement? That’s gotta be a mighty big basement, with a hell of a cellar door!

    WW4: More fuel for the argument that judges should not be elected.

    WW5: LE can sniff my taint. Mugshots should be confidential until after a conviction unless needed to secure the assistance of the public in locating a suspect/fugitive.Report

    • veronica d in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      WW3: Given his age, maybe he drove the tank into a hole and built a house over it.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      WW3: The guy was born in 1937, so he acquired the tank somewhere, as opposed to driving it home at the end of the war.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      RE: WW1: Given the evidence, would that case even be prosecuted today?

      Today we’d have a lot more evidence. Phone records would give us a better idea of who was where and when. If “beaten” is old-speak for “raped”, then odds are good whoever it was (Croucher) left DNA. If she and her lover were fighting then odds are good there will be e-messages and we’ll have a motive.

      If the choice is between the still-on-good-terms-with-her lover and the guy who goes on to commit various sex crimes later, then my without-evidence vote is for the later.Report

  2. Ozzzy!
    Ignored
    says:

    “… won the right to choose her own attorney, who filed the petition two weeks after he was retained. The next hearing in the case will be in”

    Leave ‘em wanting more, always!

    – Em, probably while maniacally laughing

    (I kid and love these every week!)Report

  3. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    WW3: The correct answer in this case is to confescate the weapons but otherwise look the other way. There isn’t evidence that anybody was armed by him possessing the weapons and putting an 84 year old man in jail that didn’t physically harm anybody is not going to do anybody ever good. Discretion, the idea that you literally can’t prosecute every law breaker and justice or at least sanity sometimes really did require looking the other way, used to be cornerstone of Western jurisprudence. Very few people seem to like the idea of discretion these days.Report

    • veronica d in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      According to the article the defense has proposed he pay a fine, but a lower fine than they might otherwise — mostly on account of the fact no real harm was caused and clearly he was just an oddball collector and not a threat.

      Certainly I think he should be responsible for compensating the state for the cost of, for example, getting the tank out of his basement, which according to the article took at fair bit of work.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      He was armed by him possessing the weapons.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *