Slashdot Mirror
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder
Anonymous Meoward writes "Today Hans Reiser was found guilty of first degree murder in Oakland, California. Quoting Wired: 'In a murder case with no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence, the prosecution began the trial last November with a daunting task ahead... The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.' Whether he really did it or not, Hans basically just didn't know when to shut up."
The prosecutor was also able to exclude the testimony of a guy called Sturgeon, who admitted to killing at least eight people and was having an affair with Hans Reiser's wife. If his testimony were allowed, it'd be the battle of the two weirdos and Hans, being the guy in a murder case who hasn't admitted to murdering, probably would have came out on top.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
He didn't represent himself. He took the stand in his own defense.
Personally I am blown away by the incompetence of the defense attorney. Clearly he must have understood Reiser (guilty or not) would not help his case by testifying. He should never have been put on the stand.
]{
My personal opinion is that Hans killed Nina in a fit of rage, then scrambled to cover up the evidence. I did not see any evidence whatsoever of premeditation. So I can not at all understand how this jury reached a verdict of First degree murder.
RTFA, Reiser's defense attorney didn't want to put him on the stand, but Reiser insisted.
this part of the article caught my eye:
"Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.)"
Except the kids were sent to stay with their grandmother. In Russia. Funny how that worked out.
-- Will program for bandwidth
No. They will advise - sometimes in *very* strong terms. But in the end, it's their client's call.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
It was a complete lie. Sturgeon didn't kill 8 people, the police checked up on the story. The jury didn't get to hear that part because the police found Sturgeon to be an attention whoring liar.
Reiser's case isn't a capital one. In California IIRC, first-degree murder is only a capital offense when specific aggravated circumstances are present, none of which really apply to this case (ie, killing a cop, felony murder, torture, etc).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
IANAL, so could someone explain to me how it makes any sense that he was found guilty of first degree murder when no one can even prove that Nina is dead? Maybe a lesser charge such as manslaughter, but I think that the fact that the prosecution cannot definitely say that she is dead should be enough for reasonable doubt.
You have to convince the jury that the murder happened, and just because you don't have a body doesn't mean a jury can't find beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder took place, if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough.
Really kids, listen to this guy.
I once spent 48hrs in custody and 2 years of going to hearings for not listening to this basic piece of advise.
I ended up proving myself innocent of what I was being accused of (and the real guilty party, my boss at the time, was never accused).
So, I learned two valuable lessons after this ordeal:
1- If you find out that your boss is doing unethical and illegal stuff, quit your job.
2- If you find yourself being questioned by the police about something, ask first if you are under arrest. If you are, don't say a word to the cops until you get your lawyer to speak for you.
No sig for the moment.
And his attorney did advise against it, in very strong terms.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Uh.
Hans' friend didn't kill anyone. The police investigated him and cleared him. If he'd testified on the stand, he'd be committing perjury too. Besides, I've read the transcripts. Nobody had Sean Sturgeon on their witness lists. The defense could have called him but didn't.
One must also remember that the US, as with the UK, use the adversarial court system. This attempts to establish guilt. Other countries use the inquisitorial system, which attempts to ascertain the truth of the matter. Both systems produce questionable results and have giant catalogues of miscarriages of justice to their names, which leads me to conclude that you either want a blend of the two or neither, but purely one or the other is inadequate. However, that's not the system used anywhere, as far as I know.
Do I think Hans Reiser is guilty or innocent? I don't think I know enough to say, for the above reason. I don't think the system exists yet to establish that with any certainty. I think he's guilty of stupidity - you don't ask a SQL database engineer to do assembly code programming, he knows that, so he should have been quite capable of inferring that you don't ask a software engineer to do lawyering. Beyond that, I don't know.
Sadly, his stupidity isn't grounds for appeal. He can't claim that he misrepresented himself. That doesn't work. We shall probably never know what really happened or why - again, the US system doesn't really try to establish such things. We shall also never really know to what extent Hans Reisers' autism affected the trial. In the legal system as it exists, criminal insanity (not knowing right from wrong) is only sometimes recogized, other forms of insanity or mental abnormality are neither recognized nor considered mitigating factors in a person's actions or a person's evidence. I don't like that either, but again we have the system we have.
This case proves only one thing to me, and that is that we'd almost be better off with no system at all. Not quite, but almost.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
IANAL, but it's not quite as black-and-white as "if not under arrest, get up and leave". Make sure you're always courteous, even when you KNOW you're right.
The ACLU has some hints about this:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dwb%20bust%20card7_04.pdf
Indeed, the right to a fair trial also covers the right to face your accusers and testify in your own defense.
The police investigated and concluded he's a nutcase because Sturgeon couldn't demonstrate that he'd actually killed eight people. And if putting Sturgeon in jail solves eight unsolved murders at the cost of freeing Reiser, well, if I were a cop I'd happily make that trade.
Given that Sturgeon's a fameseeking whackjob, it's certainly correct that his 'confession' should not have been allowed in court to affect Reiser's trial.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
She wasn't a doctor, though. She was a "child physician", a title that lacks a counterpart in the US, and is often incorrectly translated to doctor. It doesn't give MD status, is a low-paid job in Russia, and is in reality closer to a midwife with prescription rights.
But no, it's pretty clear that she would not abandon her kids like that. And who, if planning to run away, would buy $140 worth of groceries and leave it in their car?
Let's hope the killer is man enough to now tell where the body was disposed of, so the family can find some closure.
>Can he work on free software from jail?
Depends on the jail. I had a co-worker who learned programming in a prison rehab program. He was very good at what he did.
But, at least to start with, Hans is going to go to one of the standard places where you go for 1st degree murder.
He will be lucky if he gets an hour "outdoors" or ever again sees a window. But at least it's California. There's a chance he might, someday, get access to some kind of computer. He might even get a regular IT job, within the system.
But it might be a few years before he even gets a *radio*. Start with "your own roll of toilet paper in your cell".
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Yo've been watching too much TV. The judge's charge to the jury in a murder trial is VERY explicit on this point - the defendant doesn't have to explain ANYTHING - the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution, and the jury is forbidden to interpret the defendants' refusal to testify as any sort of indication of guilt or innocence.
And yes, I've sat as a juror on a murder trial. (the linked entry is for the 3rd murder trial I've been involved with)
That joke and ReiserFS are similar in that they both can replay themselves.
I introduced the lists to make it more readable, and put clarifications for the referenced sections in brackets to avoid the need to look them up.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
They have NEVER needed a body. Actually having a body has never been a requirement for bringing or convicting on a murder charge. It's too easy to dispose of a body--cremation, hell, simple burial if you're good at concealing where you dug the grave.
Habeas corpus? It's not just a legal term, it's a question in Latin. That's why they're saying you have to have a body; they don't understand that *habeas corpus* is a metaphor, and that having abundant physical evidence that a crime was committed (large quantities of blood, anyone?) is usually enough.
Then there would be endometrial cells present, which are only present in menstral blood (or if the cuts were through her uterous I suppose.)
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Habeas refers to the _defendant's_ body. You have bring the person to court, demonstrate that he hasn't been killed or tortured, and publicly announce the charges. Habeas corpus does not refer to victim's bodies. For a nice history of Habeas, see Habeas Schmabeas.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Actually, you don't need a body. The Charley Project has documented 170 cases of convictions without bodies, though their list is incomplete and out of date. It's almost certainly much more than that.
As a side note... check out:
http://flexyourrights.org/
They've got some good write ups about what your rights are under various police encounters...
Nephilium
But no, it's pretty clear that she would not abandon her kids like that.
And if she is alive (I'm not convinced either way), she didn't. Her mom took her kids to Russia.
And who, if planning to run away, would buy $140 worth of groceries and leave it in their car?
Someone trying to frame their spouse.
You know, I'd consider marking that as Funny if I had mod points... and if you weren't confusing FAT16 and FAT32.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
According to the San Francisco Chronicle blog that was following Reiser's trial, Sean Sturgeon's testimony was not excluded: he was never called on to testify, by either the prosecution or the defense.
If you were the defense attorney and Sturgeon could provide testimony that would help exonerate your client, wouldn't you call him as a witness?
You Know, I'd probably mark you as informative if i had mod points...The fact I'm didn't confuse anything and your post isn't informative at all wouldn't stop me though.
While I know where you were coming from you got your limits wrong
Partition limits FAT12:32MB FAT16:2GB* FAT32:8TB
File size limit for all 4GB --that's what I was referring to BTW
*upon further inspection there is a 4GB mode for 64k clusters (not widely supported), so your not wrong about the limits but you are wrong about me being wrong
Anyway I hope this posts explains the factual correctness of a joke, I will admit I was initially going to just refer to the partition a FAT partition but then I realised somebody might be running some obscure FAT64 that hasn't got the 4GB file limit and it could of spawned an entire thread of FAT comments debating its utility, so I stuck 32 in to avoid a pointless thread.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
This does not apply in the UK, where we no longer have a right to silence.
UK You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
Or
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Nope, it means the US has enforced more laws with longer penalties which criminalize more behavior than other large countries. Would you do ten years for 5 grams of crack in Spain? I don't think so.