« Feedly: My Favorite Online Tool | Main | Social media, Facebook and juries, oh my! »

June 30, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516c2469e20133f1f72aea970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prosecution of Innocents:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

nylawguy

I think if you were to review the evidence and trial transcripts your opinion may change about the "utter lack of evidence." While I hold great respect for Justice Clancy, the trial judge, who took a great amount of time to render her post-conviction decision overturning the verdict, in this case she was, respectfully, wrong. The partitioned walls in this apartment were known to the landlord and their agents, and they did tolerate them. This was an apartment building in the Bronx where the tenants subdivided the apartment and then ran "octopus" extension cords - causing electrical issues ultimately resulting in the fire. The rent was collected, in person, by a landlord rep. Thus, they had access to the apartment, saw the horrid conditions, and did nothing about it. I believe there was also a suggestion that the superintedent was taking a kickback off the rent. The firefighters had no way to know that the partition walls were up - so they go into a heavy smoke filled apartment, looking to save people and douse the flames, and when the fire flares up - they head to where the clear path to the emergency exit (i.e. the windows) should be. However, they can't get to them because there is an unapproved - unreported wall in the way. By the time the firefighters could get around the maze that the tenants created, and the landlord tolerated for profit, they were out of reserve oxygen in their scott packs and had no choice but to leap from the apartment with the hopes of landing safely. Sadly, that was not to be in, as firefighters died and were maimed. The company and super are not innocents. They took advantage of a situation where poor people were living in squalor - and fostered it for their own benefit. I truly hope that prior to publishing the negative view of the prosecution, you do a heartfelt search of the record. You may not feel the defendants were "guilty" (although I do); however, I strongly believe that you will be less inclined to believe that this was a "tenuous prosecution" or media fodder. Also, please keep in mind that the jury, in Bronx County - where jury conviction rates are notoriously low - did convict.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About This Blog

Sui Generis Partner

Other Sui Generis Sponsors





Receive Updates Via Email

disclaimer

  • This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

    The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

    Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.