4. Trying To Figure Out A Legal Problem: When Does “Commission of a Felony” occur?

Roger and I went to Albie’s wake and expressed shock that someone would poison Alby.  We expressed our sorrow to his grieving widow who much to our surprise called us a pair of bastards. An even greater one came as we walked outside and were met by a handful of cops and arrested.

It turned out we made one mistake. We did not know about the video camera in the diner. It showed us doing the dirty deed so now we’re in the slammer. We’re not alone, though. I figured I’d tell the story to the cops hoping to cut myself a break but all I managed to do was get Spike and Jimmy arrested also.

The thing I can’t figure out though is why we are all charged with murder by gun – that is we are being charged with being armed with a gun during the commission of the murder. Can you believe it? All Spike did was suggest it three weeks before we poisoned Albie; Jimmy didn’t want anything to do with it two weeks before; we decided not to use guns yet we are all charged with carrying a weapon during the commission of the murder.

Does it make sense? Why it makes a difference is the punishment is increased if we are found to have a weapon during the commission of the offense. How can you have a weapon when you poison a guy and leave the weapons home?

As I’ve often said, the law is what the judges say it is so here’s what the judge said.

To be charged with carrying a weapon all that is needed is “the defendant carries any weapon or firearm at any time during the commission of a felony.”

Therefore, “The murder began when [Spike] told [Jimmy, Roger and me] to “take care of” [Albie] and it ended when Albie was actually [poisoned]. The judge went on, “The defendant[s] acts occurred during the commission of the completed crime of second degree murder.”

It was surprising to know that the commission of the act of murder began in Chicago three weeks before the poisoning took place in Boston and any act during that time was part of the commission.

Spike who suggested we take care of Albie got jammed in because when he met us in Chicago he took Roger’s gun and put it on a shelf, he was deemed to have carried it. Jimmy got jammed in because he took the gun Roger handed to him and gave it back to him. Roger and I because we carried the guns but decided not to use them. It all makes perfect sense to that judge.

The problem I have with it is that I was tracking Albie around during a lot of the three-week period. He was fine. It didn’t look like anyone was trying to murder him. How can the judge say that when he was eating those hot dogs up at Sullivan’s a murder was being committed on him?

As I said earlier I may be dealing with common sense but that’s apparently not allowed to come into the courtroom doors. What’s more scary, five other judges came to the same conclusion that an act committed three weeks earlier over a thousand miles away was committed during the poisoning of Albie.

Remember I’m not talking a conspiracy but the actual crime of murder. How any judge can conclude it was committed three earlier in another state than where the murder takes place – you know that even though Albie was not in Chicago when we talked about murdering him that murder was being committed upon him – sort of jumps the shark in legal reasoning.

The lesson to be learned is that if the judges want to get you they will, common sense be damned.

3 thoughts on “4. Trying To Figure Out A Legal Problem: When Does “Commission of a Felony” occur?

  1. A prosecutor has to prove each and every essential element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If no evidence is introduced on a required element to be proven then the defendant is entitled to be found not guilty. Zero evidence was introduced at trial of Connolly’s whereabouts or whether he possessed a gun. The Court just inferred it. This was a gross violation of the Constitutional Rights of the defendant. The fix was in. Both you and Bill are 100% right. This reminds one of the framing of Amerault. 2. Connolly will never get any relief from the crooked Florida Courts who cravenly do the bidding of the FBI and the media. He has to petition a Federal judge appointed by Trump to review his case. He was framed by Mueller and Comey who invented the Rogue Agent theory to cover up the misdeeds of the entire FBI. The Feds needed a scapegoat so Rico and Connolly took the fall. Comey and Mueller framed General Flynn in a similar fashion. A Trump judge won’t rubber stamp a media frenzy and villification campaign against a citizen.

  2. Matt, you mention that five judges, the majority, agreed with this twisted reasoning. The only saving grace is that four dissenting judges openly mocked the majority’s reasoning. Like the St. Pat’s Parade case, only one Mass Judge, the brilliant, ethical Joseph Nolan, openly mocked the majority. The saving grace in the St. Pat’s case was, of course, a unanimous Supreme Court, 9-0, reversed the bizarre reasoning of the lower courts. Parades are free speech activities. Parade organizers, not the State, decide what banners are displayed and what groups march, SCOTUS said.

    In John Connolly’s case, as I understand it, it was one Florida Appellate Court that came up with this bizarre, irrational decision, at odds with precedents in other Appellate Districts, and the dissenting judges certified TWO QUESTIONS to Florida’s highest court. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT APPEAL FROM THE DISSENTING JUDGES? Was is simply ignored? Bizarre and cruel, considering an innocent man is sentenced to life in prison.

  3. Here’s how to show just how twisted those judges reasoning was. Imagine Spike was married to Tulsi Gabbard, who was in the National Guard. And Tulsi said “If Alby talks, we’ll all be in trouble.” Imagine judges concluding that Tulsi was guilty of murder by gun even though she took no other act, even though the murder occurred three weeks later, and even though no evidence was introduced at trial that Tulsi was carrying a gun.

    It reminds me of Vietnam: We have to destroy the village to save it. It reminds me of the St. Pat’s Parade case where sixteen judges (including administrative law judges) said the State decides who marches in parades and what banners can be displayed.

    It reminds me of Wyshak and Judge Young who said it was a Federal Crime to hire someone “who was not the most qualified”, and they’d decide what “most qualified”meant.

    It reminds me of a Mass Appeals Court that said when the State contaminates a lake with raw sewage . . .and the Lake was the residents’ drinking water supply . . .that was Not a nuisance, but “hitting golf balls” in the vicinity of someone’s home was an actionable nuisance.

    It reminds me of a Mass judge who thought she could look at ballots and see “dimples” and “hanging chads” and determine the voter intended to vote for her friend whom the voter did not actually vote for . . . .she by the way was the same judge who found that contaminating a water supply was not a nuisance . . . .in fact, without evidence, she concluded all the residents’ wells were above the contaminated lake, when the evidence showed only one lakeside well went dry in August during droughts.

    It reminds me of why someone wrote a book which nobody read called The Fix: The Corruption of Massachusetts Courts and Agencies and why Justice Scalia had to write a book teaching judges how to interpret statutes: Reasonably.

    But you’re correct: Crooked judges twist the plain meaning of statutes to effectuate whatever outcome they want . . . .usually leftist judges trying to impose some liberal politically correct solution or sate the leftist press.

Comments are closed.