While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement
So first of all I guess all that stuff in the video about forgiveness wasn’t really a factor. I’m just fascinated who called for this? Like was it the prosecution? In what context? Was this part of their closing arguments? Did the defense not object? So many questions.
You have to wonder if this is not grounds for an appeal.
Honestly, if I’m the defense, this has gotta be awesome, right? Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have watched Boston Legal twice, so that’s basically the same thing, and what I’m hearing is these people want to get up on the stand and show the jury a video which either:
A) to the particularly inattentive, shows the victim clearly alive, or
B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests
Barring the staggeringly unlikely event that the defendant goes full-on Perry Mason Perp and outright says “hey, sorry I killed you, man” to the hologram, this seems like a pretty sweet deal.
Legally speaking, this was a victim impact statement.
Convicted criminals have long had the common law right of allocution, where they can say anything they want directly to the judge before sentence is passed.
Starting a few decades ago, several states decided that the victims of crime should have a similar right to address the judge before sentencing. And so the victim impact statement was created.
It’s not evidence, and it’s not under oath, but it is allowed to influence the sentencing decision.
(Of course, victim impact statements are normally given by real victims).
So first of all I guess all that stuff in the video about forgiveness wasn’t really a factor. I’m just fascinated who called for this? Like was it the prosecution? In what context? Was this part of their closing arguments? Did the defense not object? So many questions.
You have to wonder if this is not grounds for an appeal.
deleted by creator
Honestly, if I’m the defense, this has gotta be awesome, right? Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have watched Boston Legal twice, so that’s basically the same thing, and what I’m hearing is these people want to get up on the stand and show the jury a video which either:
A) to the particularly inattentive, shows the victim clearly alive, or
B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests
Barring the staggeringly unlikely event that the defendant goes full-on Perry Mason Perp and outright says “hey, sorry I killed you, man” to the hologram, this seems like a pretty sweet deal.
Legally speaking, this was a victim impact statement.
Convicted criminals have long had the common law right of allocution, where they can say anything they want directly to the judge before sentence is passed.
Starting a few decades ago, several states decided that the victims of crime should have a similar right to address the judge before sentencing. And so the victim impact statement was created.
It’s not evidence, and it’s not under oath, but it is allowed to influence the sentencing decision.
(Of course, victim impact statements are normally given by real victims).