Rosa Maria Sanchez has been in prison for 23 years for a crime that she has always insisted that she did not commit. Even the commissioner who presided over Sanchez’ trial said her conviction had haunted him. “…it was one of the few times in my 59 years as a lawyer that I think justice was not served.”
Now because of the work of Jennifer Farrell, a second-year law student at the USC Gould School of Law, the parole board has recommended that Sanchez be released.
Governor Schwarzenegger had until today, Friday, to oppose the parole board’s recommendation. Word finally came from the governor’s office Thursday that that Arnold would not review her case. The parole board’ recommendation would be allowed to stand. After all these years of being separated from her now-grown children, Rosie Sanchez would finally be getting out.
ABC News has the story.
In 1985, Rosa Sanchez operated a store in the L.A. garment district. When a nearby rival’s shop burnt down, a man sleeping in the shop died. Sanchez was arrested and found guilty of murder. She’s been in prison for 23 years.
Jennifer Farrell, a second-year law student at the USC Gould School of Law, is working to gain Sanchez’s release.
“Unfortunately, her public defender did not do a good job in her initial trial. Apparently he spoke for about 30 minutes and then rested the case,” said Farrell.
Farrell said credible alibi witnesses were not called in the trial.
FATHER GREG BOYLE ON TALK OF THE NATION
No, this is not the last of links and stories I’ll be doing on Father Greg in the next week. (Trust me I’m just warming up.) His wonderful new book, Tattoos on the Heart, came out on Tuesday—hence the flurry of TV and radio shows. But this segment on NPR’s Talk of the Nation is a particularly nice one.
CHELSEA KING AND THE PAROLE VIOLATION
As furious as I am that John Albert Gardner III, Chelsea King’s accused killer, was not given the high term for his previous sexual assault of a preteen girl, this latest bit of news—how he wasn’t sent back to prison for a parole violation—seems to have a lot of people rushing to miss the point.
Based on his lack of remorse, his psych eval, and his prior crime, this man should have been high control, and monitored aggressively.
But here’s the thing: We cannot send everyone on parole back to prison for minor violations, every time one parolee turns out to be a true monster.
Sadly, as much as I wish that had been locked up for good some time ago, we had no legal cause to do so—at least not based on what we know of his record thus far.
UPDATE:
OKAY, POSTING FOR NO EARTHLY REASON OTHER THAN…. BECAUSE IT’S COOL….
Ford has just debuted it’s new Ultimate Cop Car—A “Police Interceptor” to replace the tried and true old Crown Vic.
NOTE: I still am madly in student paper correcting and personal deadline mode, so today’s blogging is a little light. Next week will be back to full strength. (That is presuming the dog doesn’t wander off again.)
And the reason I didn’t buy Ford stock a year ago at $1.29 a share is…?
Wow, after 23 years, Sanchez is being released? What does 23 years in prison for a crime you claim you didn’t commit do to a woman?
[…] Shared Rosa Maria Sanchez Gets Out Because of USC Law Student – UPDATED. […]
C: But here’s the thing: We cannot send everyone on parole back to prison for minor violations, every time one parolee turns out to be a true monster.
Explain that to Chelsea King’s parents.
Until the state can act competently enough to evaluate “his lack of remorse, his psych eval, and his prior crime,” then the best alternative is err on the side of imprisonment.
Celeste, your dreams of release and parole are based upon an idealistic view that the government can do anything right.
,†then the best alternative is err on the side of imprisonment”
Would this also apply in a death penalty case?
Woody have you missed taking your meds lately?
Woody, you’re into the realm of Minority Report.
Jim, for once I’m feeling smug because I did buy a bunch of Ford stock (albeit well before its very lowest point) and resisted my broker’s repeated urgings to sell it.
Celeste, why aren’t you harping more on the ineptness of government in the criminal justice system rather than defending murderers who take advantage of that ineptness?
I’ll be harping very soon, not to worry.
May I suggest a Ramos Gon Fiz cocktail instead of meds, the drink is delicious and it also helps prevent Internet stalking.
Jim, for once I’m feeling smug because I did buy a bunch of Ford stock (albeit well before its very lowest point) and resisted my broker’s repeated urgings to sell it
Imagine that. The company that told Wash. D.C. they didn’t want their bailout money flourishing. The auto company that the government hasn’t taken over is doing well.
Why is it that all the people who think the feds can run things better than private industry aren’t running out and buying GM and Chrysler stock? If the feds can run things so well their stock should be thru the roof soon right?
Nobody is putting their money where their mouth is. Why is that?
For anyone who thinks the Healthcare Bill is a good idea, it’s examples like this that should give them pause to rethink their position. Two years ago everybody knew the feds couldn’t run anything right.
Do you really think that changed when BHO was elected? Hardly.
Common Sense, what you say is counter factual and counter-logical. Ford made smart choices prior to the whole general melt down and as the auto industry went into its decline—while GM did not.
Ford sold off assets and other brands, and slimmed down and unified its production system, in order to have a larger cash reserve so they could last through the worst of everything. GM did not—until they were forced to do so by the U.S. gov’t.
Ford introduced a hybrid—the first hybrid SUV in the market—in 2004 (the Escape) and thus was prepared to more quickly embrace the future when buyers interest turned away from big engine gas guzzlers to greener vehicles. GM did not.
In fact—belatedly—(but better late than never) Ford stated its intention to attempt to take leadership in fuel economy technology, and was actually in a position to be in the running—all of which helped it enormously in the public perception. GM was in no position to do anything of the kind, as it had made all the wrong bets for so long.
In general, Ford had already done what the gov’t asked of the other two, GM and Chrysler, and eventually forced on GM.
Obviously, the fact that Ford did not take the bailout and that it showed innovation early on, also put it in a far more positive position in the public perception—as opposed to GM, which screwed up so massively that it was forced into Chapter 11.
The federal government has not wrecked GM. GM wrecked GM all by itself. The feds have given it its only shot at resurrection.
More specifically, the feds simply forced it to do what it should have done long ago, and is giving it a chance to recover so that it did not deliver one more terrible blow to employment and to the economy. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen. There are a few small signs for optimism. They are no longer bureaucratically bloated. Their sales are up 11.5 percent this Feb. over last, and they are about to—long last—introduce the Chevy Volt. Surely we all wish them the best.
But to blame Ford’s good fortunes and GM’s woes on the fact that GM has been taken over by the US government is a laughable attempt to be partisan.
I bought and held on to Ford stock because I’ve tracked the running of the company for a long time and was betting that, despite some of its missteps, and the mess that the car biz was (and still is) in, it would not only come back it would come back with some substance. It also felt like a good way of keeping faith with an American company that I wanted to succeed—for all our sakes.
When the Fusion was declared car of the year, I knew—thankfully—that at least for now, I had bet right.
And, yes, I do drive a Ford.
Celeste, GM should have bankrupted and voided all union contracts and commitments – its biggest problems. But, pressure and money from Obama kept the company from declaring bankruptcy until the government could take control for one purpose only – pay back the unions for their support by letting them keep their jobs and their high pay and lifetime benefits. In the process, the government screwed other debtors and shareholders. What do they call it…something like “spreading the wealth?”
In the process, Obama forced out mangement and put a guy in charge who had absolutely no experience in the automobile industry. Government does nothing right.
Celeste “defending murderers”
Really, Woody ? Unfortunately, even under the new universal health care plan, there’s no way of implanting a sense of decency in the souls of the buffoons parading as “contemporary conservatives.”
Wrong Celeste, absolute 100% wrong is your take on Gardner.
Here’s what you said that has little or absolutely no basis in fact. My comments follow.
—-
But here’s the thing: We cannot send everyone on parole back to prison for minor violations, every time one parolee turns out to be a true monster (Sure we could, we just don’t want to because of the cost. Any violation is legally subject to going back in period, and when a parolee signs their parole conditions they are fully aware of that).
Sadly, as much as I wish that had been locked up for good some time ago, we had no legal cause to do so—at least not based on what we know of his record thus far (oh yeah we did, I’ll answer below).
—-
Here’s what Gardner’s actual minor violations were besides living near a college day care center in 2007 where his obviously lazy and incompetent P.O., or one of his bosses, gave him 2 weeks to move instead of violate his murdering worthless ass then.
—–
Gardner had several potential parole violations, the summary said. He missed a parole meeting, was suspected of marijuana use and had four low-battery alerts from the global positioning system strapped to his body. All were considered minor.
“If we were to return to custody individuals with these types of infractions, the system would not be able to take it,” said Oscar Hidalgo, a department spokesman. “We would flood our agents and our parole offices with technical violations that we couldn’t sustain. The system itself couldn’t sustain it.”
The violation of the residency rule could have led to a hearing process with parole officials.
“It never got that far with Gardner,” said spokeswoman Terry Thornton, adding that he moved within two weeks of being notified. “If a parole officer gives someone a direct order, move, and the guy moves, there’s no reason to revoke him.”
—–
You, his P.O. or whoever let him slide time after time and Hidalgo are all cut from the same cloth. Let’s not over load the system, let’s give the guy a chance they’re all minor violations no big deal and let’s be deaf, dumb and blind to red flags all over the place.
The violations…
1) Dope use…not a huge deal when you consider its weed but a sign he doesn’t care about his parole conditions.
2) Missing a meeting with his P.O…..a big no-no in the parole world but no big deal to his moron of a p.o. or whoever.
3) Living near a day care center, a major red flag no matter where it’s at but his p.o. says no big deal.
4) Lastly all those low battery alerts. WTF you think would have been the reason for them allowing him to get away with that four times? Think they didn’t warn him the first time? Did nobody realize what this scum was capable of, or were they all just uncaring idiots?
Should this P.O., or someone higher up, with all these violations maybe have thought at some point, “Hey I need to wake this idiot up”, rather than trying to save the state a few bucks where we wind up with at least one dead young girl and maybe 2 and an attempt rape/kidnapping?
Would 6 months back in custody on a violation have been too much of a cost to save at least one life?
I also wonder where you came up with this gem…”Sadly, as much as I wish that had been locked up for good some time ago, we had no legal cause to do so—at least not based on what we know of his record thus far”.
Is that right? No legal cause? Want to show me your legal basis because you’re dreaming. All those violations were cause to send him up to be violated, to at least have it looked at and maybe someone would have looked at his record and said, “Wait a minute, this guys a psychotic child molester, send him a fucking message!”
Here’s a quick look at what being on parole means from a legal stand point.
—-
Parole involves supervision after serving a prison term. You can be on parole for up to four years after you have served your sentence in prison, and you have to follow certain conditions imposed upon you.
If you have been accused of violating your parole, a hearing will be held to determine if you are guilty of having done so. If you are found guilty, you could be sent back to prison for up to 12 months.
In some instances, you may be eligible for an alternative to prison.
—-
Policy is what you’re talking about Celeste, not the law. Of course he could have been legally sent back.
I heard the same bullshit here about Charles Samuel, he could have been sent back instead of to a program on his last violation but because the state wants to save a few bucks we have at least two dead young girls just starting their lives out and maybe more.
On Samuel and Gardner you’ve had the same rap, more time initially but no big deal not sending them back.
We could have, we should have and if we would have we’d have some families and friends not living through the torment these animals put them through that can not be explained away with monetary savings or misunderstanding of the law.
What health care plan is that, reg? The one that was bought with the likes of the Louisiana Purchase and has been rejected by a majority of Americans? This was a good quote by Newt Gingrich:
And, you want the government running healthcare when it’s so dishonest and is too incompetent to even handle paroles properly?
For people with at least a tinge of testosterone (not you, reg) here’s the NCAA Tournament Printable Bracket.
SureFire, a couple of things:
1. Read this sentence: Sadly, as much as I wish that had been locked up for good some time ago, we had no legal cause to do so—….
I said we had no legal cause to lock him up “for good”—meaning forever, even though I wish that he had been locked up with the key thrown away. Certainly we had the legal right to violate the guy. We have no argument about that.
2. I don’t think I explained myself well on the parole violation issue as I was so, so tired when I wrote that whole post.
Let me try again now: I think everyone is missing the point: This guy SHOULD have been high control, and SHOULD HAVE been violated. The problem is not that someone with those violations should have been locked up for another six months, it’s that someone with his record and his psych eval should likely have been violated. We’re focusing the wrong place. We need a better filtering system for our parole classifications. I don’t think he was classified correctly or they would have violated him.
But we shouldn’t use that tragic and hideous error to then draw some idiotic, broad strokes conclusion that has us going back to violating everyone. (not calling you idiotic, just so we’re clear).
Again, I’m entirely at fault for not writing that more clearly in the first place, but I was operating that night with fewer than the requisite number of cylinders firing.
(I’d just finished reading and commenting on 300 pages of student work—no exaggeration—and was lucky I was completing sentences at all. Sorry about that.)
And here’s what bothers me as well. Let’s say we did violate the guy. Then what? Without some kind of very agressive rehabilitative intervention, where are we? He gets out in 6 months and kills somebody then.
If Gardner did what he is accused of doing, he’s a full fledged psychopath. Six months in lock-up doesn’t cure that.
Charlie Samuel is a whole other discussion. I think there were definite screw ups with regard to him, but they don’t have to do with parole violations. The more we know about him, the more it seems that there were red flags all over the place, but that they were never looked at. Until now.
If everyone who cares about this stuff—right, left, and in the middle—really sat down, politics aside, and looked at this system, we could design something that reduced the prison population, reduced recidivism, and better classified the really, really bad people whom we should be locking up. (Gilbert and Samuel being high on the latter list.)
Trust me, I have these discussions with people who see things as you do. But we find a meeting point. Unfortunately, politics, not common sense, calls most of the shots.
You missed my whole point Celeste, perhaps because you read something into my statement that was not there (partisan politics).
My whole point is that Ford is/was doing fine and turning a profit without any help from the feds. We were told that was the only way GM could make it. Bunk. GM could make it with the same type of discipline and business practices as Ford.
Let me put it another way, perhaps more palatable for you that doesn’t evoke a defensive reply.
Remember the Hurricane Katrina mess? Do you believe that the government is so much better at running things now because BHO is in office? Hardly. Do you believe the government can run any type of private industry better than the people who have been in that business all of their working careers, while the fed is run by career politicians?
Easy choice when you apply logic.
My point was GM and Chrysler will be in as bad a shape as ever three years from now. Count on it.
“GM could make it with the same type of discipline and business practices as Ford.”
We can assuredly agree on that. Unfortunately, they seemed disinclined to do it.
So the feds forced the issue.
Also, if I read partisanship that wasn’t there into what you wrote, I apologize for that. Glad to hear I got it wrong.
Be serious Celeste, you couldn’t be more wrong.
“Charlie Samuel is a whole other discussion. I think there were definite screw ups with regard to him, but they don’t have to do with parole violations”.
He got violated and was sent to a program instead of to jail and Lily Burk is dead…period! It have everything to do with how his parole violation was handled!
You think way to lightly of the propensity for someone with a history of only minor, or what you consider minor, violations on their raps to not have the ability inside them to step up to the next level to do the type of thing Samuel did. He had a history but others like him who violate the law to the point of having pages and pages of raps at some point need to be locked down for fucking ever.
You don’t get that but I’ve seen it too many times to not realize it’s a major problem and while people like you want to give these lower level, for now, thugs chance after chance I’d rather not take the chance that after years of not minding prison one of these assholes will say fuck it and step up their game.
Did those zillinon car washes you’ve been to not make you realize that?
Sure Fire, You’re picking a fight where, in this case, we may not have one. With regard to Charlie Samuel, I mostly meant that it’s a much longer discussion.
I think there’s an important conversation to be had about the classification system—which has direct bearing on Charlie Samuel. But it ain’t gonna be this minute.
I’m going to try to post about the issue of parole classification later this week—or early next week. So hold your fire for a few days. Plenty of time to shoot at me then.