Arbitrary and Capricious: WA: novel bank robbery theory

Arbitrary and Capricious: WA: novel bank robbery theory

Our friend Skelly over at Arbitrary and Capricious has found a case where an apparent guilty bank robber goes free after the Judge overturns his conviction, because the prosecutor failed to prove that the bank involved in the bank robbery was a "Financial institution" under the state laws definition. He wants the court to assume that because the "bank" calls itself a bank, it is in fact a bank under the statute. Now it may very well be a financial institution, but it is the prosecutor's job to prove that. He didn't, he loses. Does he accept the blame for blowing it? NO!! He belittles the judge and basically calls the law an ass.

I just wanted to put my opinion of what is to come down here for you all to consider. Here was my rant at Skelly's blog:

"The sad thing here is, that by tonight the O"Reilly's, Limbaughs, and Hannity's of the world the self appointed gaurdians of the so called right, will be screaming about a "Stupid" judge who "misread or overplayed the law".
We will have to hear how this guy got off on a technicality and of course how we have to get rid of the liberal judges.
What will get lost in the soup is that the prosecutor had the same judicial instructions as the defense attorney and that he had the same copy of the statute. All he had to do was make an element chart (see how easy it is here http://www.colleluorilaw.com/CM/...Case- Theory.asp ), follow it and voila' a conviction would have been had.
If this was a football game, would we blame the winning team for exploiting the weak unprepared Cornerback. Would we blame the Referee for making the call? NO we would be yelling for the defensive player to learn his coverages. This prosecutor blew his assignment and now he wants to blame the court, the legislature, and the defense lawyer because he let one slip through his hands.
How would we feel if this had been a murder case and the prosecutor did not prove an element of Murder such as the death was not caused by the punch the defendant threw? Then we kill the defendant and lo and behold his actions didn't kill the alleged victim?
I am sick and tired of hearing about technicalities. We have a right in this country to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails then it fails. These are rights not technicalities.

The state doesn't need another law, and no it is not necessarily a given that this "so called" bank is a financial institution, unless it fits under the statutory definition, an element of the crime to be proven by... The prosecutor!

Someday one of these holier than thou talking heads, who pretend to be law and order [they aren't you know they just order the laws they like] is going to be hung because of his own refusal to really understand that strict construction means HOLDING THE GOVERNMENT TO ITS BURDENS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, EVEN WHEN IT HURTS US. When we start to understand that, THEN we will be a truly conservative nation and not one that only cares when its own ox is being gored.
Sorry for the rant Skelly but I do feel better now."

And I do feel better now! Hope you all had (or are having) a good Christmas, Chaunukah, Kwanza or just good Holy Days and I pray you all have a Happy and Healthy New Year.

BTW: If you have an opinion on these matters, leave me a note here or at www.colleluorilaw.com