.jpg)
The ex writ does its best to distinguish United States v. Tate, 64 M.J. 269 (C.A.A.F. 2007), which had a similar, though not identical, waiver of NMCPB rights. On the LWOP issue the tide is a bit against Quintanilla, Ronghi and Thomas, but there is no case law directly on point as to whether LWOP applies retroactively (for a defendnat specifically asking for it to be applied retroactively).Furthermore, on information and belief, Petitioner believes the Convening Authority will accept a pretrial agreement that provides for a non-capital sentencing hearing, conditioned upon a presentencing determination that Petitioner’s agreement to waive his right to request clemency or parole is legally permissible. . . .
Furthermore, on information and belief, Petitioner believes the Convening Authority will accept a pretrial agreement that provides for a non-capital sentencing hearing, conditioned upon a presentencing determination that Petitioner’s agreement to waive his right to request clemency or parole is legally permissible.
Disclaimer: Almost everyone on this blog (OK, 3 of us) was a Quintanilla appellate defense counsel (or in the case of a commenter, trial counsel).
Posts
6 comments:
On the LWOP issue, it's either retroactive or it's not, and I suspect it's not. On the parole/clemency issue, this is one of my major beefs with the court-martial system. You have an accused who wants to get a better deal by baraining away one of the chits he has to bargain with, and a CA who apparently wants what the accused would like to trade. Yet CAAF and (supposedly) the MCM preclude trhe deal everyone wants to make.
[DISCLAIMER: I wrote and argued several pretrial motions in Quinanilla for the Government. I didn't participate at trial or steal any evidence].
I know someone who was in the squadron that day, so I would like to see Quinanilla get the needle.
I also think the resentence was properly ordered given the caselaw.
I would hate to see this piece of crap get a deal to avoid the needle, and then turn out to be up for parole.
On the other hand, with his 'brown power' excuse we could be looking at Mumia number two if he stays on death row.
"I know someone who was in the squadron that day, so I would like to see Quinanilla get the needle."
That's a ... what, 2nd degree connection to the victim? If that. Anon 1004's legal cred would be a lot higher if that irrelevant piece of information would have been left out.
On the other hand, maybe not. This just sounds like someone who's got some (real or imagined) beef with Sgt Quintanilla and wanted to spout off.
I agree with No-Man that the NMCPB waiver appears to be the stronger of the two arguments.
Disclaimer: I was also member of the Quintanilla appellate defense team at one time.
I said I was on your side on the law.
I also explained why I think he is no good and deserves punishment, because I know someone who was in the unit but not there when it happened.
I would keep me off the panel.
I know that someone in your position gets confused between an effective defense and defending the accused against all comers no matter what. I think that is a good thing because it means you are swinging for him which results in the best defense possible.
It also results in your going overboard, as here, and turning off those who don't really know what we are taling about.
Better response on your part:
***The "brown power", as you put it, is a sign of his confusion and mental illness at the time. He was under a lot of strain fitting into three cultures at once: The Corps, being stuck in white society, and his own culture.
A sign of his lack of evil was the way he confessed and placed himself under military control as soon as he had removed those who he saw as the evil demons.
Additional proof comes in the way he...
I can understand how someone like you, who got it second hand, would rightly so take your friend's position. However, in a situation like this it is common to blame the mentally ill person...***
Note how you could turn my post into something to help your dude out. Please also note my post is an example, and I still want him to get the needle.
Thanks for the clarification.
But also note, while I mentioned I was Quintanilla's former counsel for sake of disclosure, I added "at one time." Having been recused upon my transfer, I've not been Quintanilla's defense counsel for some time. Thus, while I cannot engage in actions that would be detrimental to him, I was also not engaging in his defense.
Accordingly, I would not feel compelled to make comments that attempt to explain the extenuating circumstances leading up to his actions, or any mitigating conduct post-shooting.
Through your clarification I now understand that you want Quintanilla to get the needle not out of some derivative sympathy toward your friend's XO, but because you had acquired second-hand knowledge of some of Quintanilla's history in the squadron that made him more reprehensible to you.
The way your post originally read, it sounded like the type of statement that goes along the lines of, "I have a friend who's from New York, therefore that puts me in a more suitable position to say all detainees at GTMO should be left to rot there." Or some such nonsense.
I've known Jessie since we were kids. This is not something he would do on his own. He has a wife and son that he loves very much. why would he do something like this on his own and lose the family he had. you people really don't know what your are talking about. You only know Jessie of a murderer, why not try to think of his mental state at the time.
Post a Comment