That's sick and heart wrenching.

this would be kind of cool if they werent killers.

Two convicted killers registered as felons before mistakenly released from Florida prison
Authorities are trying to determine who created the bogus paperwork that allowed convicted killers Joseph Jenkins and Charles Walker, both 34, to be released from a Florida prison.

Comments (3)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2013, 10:32 AM


FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Joseph Jenkins (l.) and Charles Walker (r.), both 34, were mistakenly released from a Florida prison after erroneous paperwork showed they were up for release.

ORLANDO, Fla. — As authorities search for two convicted killers freed by bogus paperwork, questions linger about who created the legitimate-looking documents that exposed gaps in Florida's judicial system.

Within days of walking out of prison, Joseph Jenkins and Charles Walker, who had been sentenced to life, traveled about 300 miles to a jail an Orlando and registered as felons. They signed paperwork. They were fingerprinted, and they were even photographed before walking out of the jail without raising any alarms. Had one of the murder victim's families not contacted prosecutors, authorities might not have known about the mistaken releases.

"We're looking at the system's breakdown, I'm not standing here to point the finger at anyone at this time," Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said Friday as he appealed to the public to help authorities find the men. He said he believed they were still in the central Florida area.

In light of the errors, the Corrections Department changed the way it verifies early releases and state legislators promised to hold investigative hearings to figure out how the documents — complete with case numbers and a judge's forged signature — duped the system.

Jenkins was released Sept. 27 and registered at the Orange County jail in Orlando on Sept. 30. Walker was set free Oct. 8 and registered there three days later.



Felons are required to register by law. When they do, their fingerprints are digitally uploaded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and a deputy at the jail verifies that they don't have any outstanding warrants, said jail spokesman Allen Moore.

By registering as the law required, they likely drew less attention.

"If there's no hit that comes back, they're free to go," said Isaiah Dennard, the Florida Sheriff's Association's jail services coordinator.

If felons do not register, a warrant is put out for their arrest, Dennard said.


Joseph Jenkins poses for a mug shot before he was mistakenly released from a Florida prison on Sept. 27. Authorities didn’t know the convicted murderers had been released until a relative of the man killed by Jenkins alerted the state attorney’s office last week.

The sheriff said there had been some sightings of the men, and "most" of their families were cooperating, but he didn't go into specifics about either detail. Police were offering a $5,000 reward for help and billboards were going up in the area.


Authorities learned about the mistaken release when one of the murder victim's families notified the state attorney's office. Dennard said victims' families are automatically notified when a felon is released, typically by a computer voice-generated phone call.

It's not clear exactly who made the fake documents ordering the release or whether the escapes were related. Authorities said the paperwork in both cases was filed in the last couple of months and included forged signatures from the same prosecutor's office and judge. Both orders also called for 15-year sentences.

"There's reason to suspect that these aren't the first occasions," Demings said later of the releases.

The state Department of Law Enforcement and the Department of Corrections are investigating the error, but so far have not released any details.

Chief Circuit Judge Belvin Perry said there were several red flags that should have attracted the attention, including that's it uncommon for a request for sentence reduction to come from prosecutors.

The Corrections Department said on Friday it verified the early release by checking the Orange County Clerk of Court's website and calling them.

Corrections Secretary Michael Crews sent a letter to judges saying prison officials will now verify with judges — and not just court clerks — before releasing prisoners early.


Charles Walker poses for a mug shot just days before he was mistakenly released from a Florida prison on Oct. 8. The convicted killer was serving a life sentence.

Sen. Greg Evers, who chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said he spoke to Perry on Friday and that the judge will offer a proposal in which judges review all early release documents before court clerks send them to prisons.

"They're working on some fail safe plans," said Evers, a Pensacola Republican. "If the court administrator put these plans in place throughout the state it will solve the problem."

New measures were implemented in the Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts Office after workers there thwarted the release of a burglary suspect from forged paperwork in 2011. The changes included only accepting judge's orders from the judge's assistant and to treat them especially carefully, said Cindy Guerra, chief operating officer for the office.


"That situation in Orlando, that just doesn't happen here," said her colleague, Louis Tomeo, the office's director of criminal courts. "Our clerks, I venture to say, would have picked up on that easily."

As the Florida court system transitions into a paperless era, special email accounts have been set up for judges. The deadline to go completely electronic is February, though it has already been moved back several times.

Across the country, prisoners have had varying success trying to escape using bogus documents. In 2010, a Wisconsin killer forged documents that shortened his prison sentence and he walked free, only to be captured a week later. In 2012, a prisoner in Pennsylvania was let out with bogus court documents, and the mistake was only discovered months later.

Jenkins, 34, was found guilty of first-degree murder in the 1998 killing and botched robbery of Roscoe Pugh, an Orlando man.

State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton said he learned Jenkins had been released when Pugh's family contacted his office. They reviewed the paperwork and found that it was a fake, then notified law enforcement.

Later, they discovered Walker's release documents were also fake.

"It is now clear that the use of forged court documents to obtain release from prison is an ongoing threat which all law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, court clerks and prison officials must address and stop," Ashton said.

Walker, 34, was convicted of second-degree murder in a 1999 slaying in Orange County. He told investigators that 23-year-old Cedric Slater was bullying him and he fired three shots intending to scare him.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...5#ixzz2iCV3HHVZ

If you were to take a guess what type of sentence would this murderer be looking at, I guess I'm asking how manys years would the DA agree to?

The defendant in a murder trial here that had been running on and off for almost five years was convicted earlier this month. His attorneys filed a motion with the judge to order a new trial because they claim that the guilty verdict wasn't justified. All the evidence against him was circumstantial, and the defense lawyers claim that the jury didn't give enough consideration of their contention that someone else might have murdered the victim. They also say that they didn't have enough time to prepare.

I give them credit for going the last mile for the defendant, but I can't imagine the judge will order a new trial. Still, the judge agreed to hear the motion, which tells me that, under certain circumstances, a judge could overrule a jury's verdict shortly after conviction. I wonder: under what circumstances? And, could a judge overrule a not-guilty verdict and order a new trial (wouldn't that be double jeopardy)?

Jeopardy terminates upon a jury's acquittal, and may not be overturned even if there is overwhelming evidence of a former defendant's guilt, or even if the judge had committed reversible error.

Kly, must a directed verdict of acquittal follow only upon the defense's request?

Yes. It would constitute ineffective assistance if defense counsel failed to request it where it was appropriate. I've never seen where a request was not made in a case, in which a judge would have granted it though.

Do I understand that a judge can order an acquittal even without a defense request?

I would pay good money to see this Polish piece of shit skinned alive. I mean that literally. And just think, there's some soulless scumbag defense attorney making money off defending this evil prick. Hide and watch, he'll only get a fraction of the prison time he deserves. If this were my dog, I'd wait until he got out and then hunt him down myself. To hell with our joke of a criminal justice system.

I couldn't agree with you more Ivy

No. There must be a motion from the moving party. At the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief, the defendant may make a motion for directed verdict. Defense counsel may also move for judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV)after a guilty verdict to allow a judge to order an acquittal or vacate part of the verdict. This latter request may only be made if a direct verdict had been requested earlier. Some jurisdictions may vary the procedure mildly, but I am unaware of a trial judge ever being empowered to override a jury's guilty verdict on his or her own motion.

The circumstances that give rise to a directed verdict are uncommon. It is hard to imagine defense counsel not making a motion. The motion is made in many cases where the evidence doesn't bear out the necessary grounds just to preserve the issue.

Of course, the prosecution may not seek a directed verdict or JNOV in any criminal case because of its constitutional burdens.

Thanks Kly. In my next life I will consider becoming an attorney, devil or not.

We attorneys are all devils until someone needs us...and then we become Jesus.

Depends on the type of attorney. Certainly no criminal defense attorney. You show me a typical criminal defense attorney and I'll show you somebody going straight to hell after they die. Most of them are really no better than the scum they defend.

My brother needed one, but he was more like Judas.

Whatever.

agreed

Kly, Oli et. al: Here is an interesting development in my home county: defense lawyers are challenging the constitutionality of automatic fines and surcharges levied on defendants who accept plea bargains:

For about six months, every plea agreement offered by the Yavapai County Attorney Office has included a mandatory minimum fine of $750 plus an unwaivable 83 percent surcharge, no matter the crime involved.

That, attorney John Napper argued Wednesday, violates the U.S. and the Arizona constitutions.

He represented six defendants, all of whom had different attorneys for their original cases, but are fighting to have the mandatory fine stricken from their - and future offers - made by the county attorney.

Angela Napper pointed out in the firm's court filing that "the stated policy reason behind the fine is having the defendant pay for the cost of his/her prosecution instead of the taxpayer," but that the fee is the same in every case and no one gets to see an itemized list of the costs incurred.

The "overwhelming majority" of defendants in Yavapai County courts are indigent, she wrote, and 90 percent of criminal cases are resolved by plea agreement, not trial.

"The burden of a blanket fine imposed without regard to the fact and circumstances of the offense or defendant falls predominantly upon the poor," she wrote, adding that more affluent people will simply pay the fine without much consideration.

She asserted that the policy usurps the power of the Legislature to set fines and fees.

And, she added, the inclusion of the fine has been confusing, as various courts have rejected the plea with a fine, or accepted it, or deferred acceptance of the plea agreement until the court can determine if the fine is appropriate.

That last decision keeps defendants who could otherwise be out of custody behind bars while the judge tries to establish whether the fine should be levied.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Dennis McGrane on Wednesday said the point of the $750 fine was not to pay for the prosecution. He said in his reply to the motion that, "The fine is simply one aspect of a felony defendant's sentence that the state believes adds an important dimension to the punishment imposed for the commission of a felony offense.

"Some counties" are putting fine money in a "county attorney's fund," he said, but in Yavapai County, the money goes to the Board of Supervisors.

"Indigency has somehow risen to a protected class" in John Napper's view, McGrane said, but "a $750 fine treats everybody the same."

Napper said that was like saying that having only a staircase at a building entrance treats everyone the same, even though handicapped visitors would not be able to get to the door.

"Not all of them can get up the damned stairs," he said, adding, "It's not always your fault (if you're poor)."

McGrane said that the state Legislature could stop the practice, but hasn't. 'We've implemented a policy that establishes a minimum fine," he said.

Napper turned the argument around, saying that "by imposing mandatory minimum fines in some cases and not others," the Legislature has shown that, if the people of Arizona want that, it can be enacted as a law.

Superior Court Judge Tina Ainley took the matter under advisement but said she expected to have a decision fairly quickly.

I have a feeling that the county judge won't agree with the lawyers--doing so would set a major precedent with far reaching implications for criminal justice in Arizona. I bet it'll have to go to the US Supreme Court--in the unlikely event that they choose to take it that far, and the court agrees to hear the case.

I don't necessarily see the paractice being stricken as unconstitutional, but it's not good policy for two reasons: it too broadly removes discretion from the sentencing court, and it provides an unnecessary hurle for district attorneys and defendants to resolve cases through plea agreements.

I disagree with Napper on two points that are untrue. He states that the purpose of the high, uniform fine is to make defendants pay the prosecution costs. However, litigation costs are ordered separately in every jurisdiction, in which I am aware, and such costs need to be itemized. Moreover, as stated in the response, costs of litigation often vary from case to case.

Napper claims that a $750 fine treats everybody the same. That's laughable.

In PA there is a standard charge only for the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program, which is for first time misdemeanor offenders, who can have the charge expunged without ever having to face a conviction. However, the indigent are given special payment plans and some assistance as the whole point is to allow people to complete the program. Their partial payments often constitute a greater financial burden than the payment of full of wealthier DUI or theft defendants.

Does this argument have ANY validity or is it something that is pure desperation?

His attorney is arguing expectation of privacy which can be quite flexible when it comes to interpretation.

LINK

I don't see the connection with the First Amendment protecting the right to photograph an unsuspecting person's private area in a public place. The better argument is that there must be a specific statute on point criminalizing the statute. Such a statute, to be constitutional, must be tailored in a limiting and specific way to achieve the narrow purpose of the law.

If, as the defense claims, the defendant merely took a picture of the woman, who was inadvertently revealing a view up her skirt in a public setting where the defendant had a legal right to be, and the photo memorialized the vantage point he legally had, there is no crime. If the defendant had to lower or position his camera angle to create a view that he would not reasonably had by his mere presence, then the woman's expectation of privacy is heightened and he could be subject to prosecution if there is a specific statute outlawing this.

I don't know what the MA law is, but if he is prosecuted under a peeping tom law, the case may not hold water as those laws prevent voyeurs from invading privacy at home or a place where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy.

I agree with Sotomayor that when judges are subject to election, you don't get fair and impartial judges. This practice of allowing the judiciary to disturb jury findings of fact, and not findings of law, violates concepts of fundamental fairness while not necessarily violating the constitution.

There are arguments to be made against this practice under the 5th, Sixth Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. I would advance an argument that such a judicial practice where without an error of law a jury verdictof life imprisonment is set aside by a judge, who imposes a penalty of death, constitutes double jeopardy.

Moreover, if the judge is allowed to override a jury's collective deliberations and verdict and substitute his own whenever it is different, why even have a jury hear a penalty phase of a death penalty case.

Here's a follow-up to a local item I posted on 11/7:

Superior Court Judge Tina Ainley has struck, from six defendants' plea agreements, a minimum fine imposed by the Yavapai County Attorney's Office (YCAO) as a standard amount, according to an attorney involved in the case.

Attorney John Napper represented the defendants, all of whom had different lawyers in their original cases. He argued that the mandatory $750 fine plus an unwaivable 83 percent surcharge is unfair.

"Those defendants that cannot pay end up going to trial and those who can, don't," he argued. "They (YCAO) are not exercising the discretion the constitution vests in them."

Chief Deputy County Attorney Dennis McGrane said the fines were fair precisely because they were across-the-board.

"Indigency has somehow risen to a protected class" in Napper's view, McGrane said, but "a $750 fine treats everybody the same."

Ainley agreed with Napper, striking the fine as a violation of due process, Napper said Friday.

It's the second recent blow to the County Attorney's standard plea bargain. In October, Judge Celé Hancock ruled that a six-month-old provision stating, "Defendant shall not buy, grow, possess, consume or use marijuana in any form, whether or not the defendant has a medical marijuana card," was illegal.

"When you say 'shall,' you are interfering with the judicial branch (of government)," Hancock said. "My issue with this paragraph is, it makes a condition of probation mandatory upon the court and prevents the court from modifying this condition of probation."

Since then, the provision has been stricken from each plea agreement to come through her courtroom, but that decision is not binding on other courts.

Because she joined six cases in this matter, Ainley's decision sets a precedent for Yavapai County courts.

McGrane could not be reached for comment Friday.

That's a pity. I remember reading about a case in Italy where 3 mafia hitmen who killed two 6-year-old boys and their mother were acquitted and couldn't be tried again in spite of new evidence. Such a spit in the innocent victims' faces. Fortunately, 2 of them have been killed later and the 3rd is serving a life sentence for another murder.

But if there is evidence that the judge has been bought, the defendant can be tried again? Like in Harry Aleman's case?

Jeopardy only applies if jeopardy exists. The appeals court ruled that none existed, therefore 2nd jeopardy could not exist.

Also keep in mind that circuit court opinions are only effective within their respective jurisdictions.

How Dare You Ask Us For A Warrant!!!

Thx, Klydon. Historically, what is the reason/argument for letting judges set aside verdicts?