On what grounds can he vacate his decision and guilty plea? Perjury? Worried defendant got railroaded? Or is he just butt hurt?
“U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta issued an order Friday instructing defendant Thomas Adams Jr. and prosecutors to explain why the guilty findings the judge entered on Tuesday, following a brief “stipulated” bench trial should not be overturned in light of Adams’ comments to a reporter the following day.”
Good find.
Judges handling Jan. 6 cases have been repeatedly and increasingly irked by defendants appearing to be apologetic and contrite in court, only to make public statements days later minimizing their guilt and sounding cavalier about their actions. And judges are loath to accept what effectively amounts to a guilty plea from any defendant who doesn’t sincerely believe in their own guilt.
So what exactly is going on with the judge here?
The heavy handed prosecution tactic on the J6 trespassers is beginning to backfire.
The state is not in control.
Probably based on lying to the court.
When you plead quilty you have to acknowledge the guilt ant you actions were a clear violation of the law.
If the individual says in court on Tuesday (to paraphrase) “I’m guilty. I did this, and this, and that which were against the law” and then on Wednesday is telling reporters he really not guilty but just lied to the court.
Then the guilty plea was not made in good faith and does not have to be accepted by the court.
Those who plead guilty (often) will get a reduced sentence over a full trial because they admitted their quit and showed some degree of contriteness. On the other hand going through a full trial sentences are often (but not always) harder then what would be negotiated for a guilty plea.
Judges do not like being lied to.
WW
Heavy handed charges and heavy handed sentences.
Most were guilty of simple trespassing.
Meanwhile hundreds of riots involving burning, looting, beatings, and killings (summer of 2020) get a wink and nod from woke libs.
No interest in even arresting much less prosecuting.
Most convicts in jail says they are not guilty even if they took a plea deal… You will have to show me pleading quilty requires the person to believe they are quilty. Also who is to say he didn’t lie to the reporter?
But it was excepted. What is he gonna do declare a mistrial on himself?
I am curious here, no idea what the law actually reads. Seems to me if everyone accepted the quilty plea, it is wrong to vacate it and force him to trial.
The judge has discretion to reject the plea.
A required part of a guilty plea is a stipulation of facts - the defendant pleading guilty has to formally agree with the facts laid out against him.
It should not be surprising to anyone that judges will get pissed off when a defendant stipulates to facts in court, and then immediately recants those facts to a reporter outside.
Not a lawyer. Just discussing over morning coffee.
But that is why I believe the Judge is asking for official pleadings from the defendant’s lawyer and from the prosecution in the case.
I believe that false official statements - if that is the way the Judge decides to go - would be grounds to vacate the guilty plea and remand the case back to a full criminal trial.
WW
Thr proceedings don’t end the moment a guilty plea is entered - it’s not over until the judge issues his final disposition.
The judge has full discretion to change his mind about pretty much anything, until that final decision is issued.
It would be interesting to know if there’s more to this? There is no doubt these defendants are being treated on a whole different scale that involves politics, powerful politicians and the mainstream media pushing a narrative. Is pleading guilty what they’ve been pressured into doing by powerful sources, threatening alternatives if they don’t? There’s an obvious two-tier system of justice in our country right now which means…it’s been corrupted. Is that being exposed in this instance?
OK that was what I was missing.
A guilty plea doesn’t require that the person believes they are guilty - but it does require them to legally stipulate to the truth of their guilt.
So what I think you are saying is he can accept the quilty plea but has to tell the judge he feels he is innocent?
If a defendant wants to plead guilty, but also publically maintain his innocence, he needs to make an Alford plea (otherwise known as nolo contendre). It’s a different plea altogether - rather that stipulating to guilt, an Alford plea stipulates that the defendant is choosing not to contest the charges.
What was Adams’ lie? He pled guilty to the charges.
He told a reporter he would do it again. So, charge him again if he does.
Adams believes whatever he was charged with was not wrong. Many of the J6 defendants were overcharged as a political stunt and to make examples of them. Ok, this guy wanted out of jail and pled guilty. The goobermint got their pound of flesh.
■■■■ that judge.
Thanks
This is not new.
Look at how the very wealthy can use the courts to their advantage, and unless they do something very bad, with rock solid evidence, they rarely get convicted.
What is even worse is how wealthy persons and corporations can influence the actual writing of legislation, to their advantage.
He didn’t say he was guilty and would do it again. He said he didn’t do anything and he didn’t do what the charge was.
Quote from the article of his direct words.
WW
But…surely, a defendant showing contrition in court and then disdain in public is not a new phenomenon? Maybe the actual problem here is that it’s being done very publicly.
It is not a new phenomenon - and neither is judges getting pissy about it.
The order from this judge is not unprecedented.
