Child Sex Offender Serving 300 Years in Colorado Is Set Free on Technicality

[Lint Head]

Michael McFadden was sentenced to spend at least 316 years in prison, but walked out of Colorado’s Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility a free man Tuesday under circumstances that left Mesa County’s district attorney “appalled,” according to the Daily Sentinel.

https://www.google.com/amp/ktla.com/2018/03/02/child-sex-offender-serving-300-years-is-set-free/amp/

[Nevernose]

1. Alternate title:

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2018, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

“DA fucks up big time, blames his own error on US Constitution”

Calling it a “technicality” is what a DA does when they’ve violated someone’s constitutional rights and gets caught. Now, because of that DA — and only because of that DA — some child in Florida will almost certainly be molested. He’s trying to absolve himself and blame his unconstitutional fuck up on “technicalities.” The DA essentially let a child molester go because of his own incompetence.

On edit: the trial judge also made a bad call when he granted the DA’s motion.

[marybourg]

3. Thank you.

Telling truth to power and to the rest of us.

[NCTraveler]

4. The DA is targeting the judges.

It seems pretty clear from the DA's own writing that he knows he violated the shit stains constitutional rights.

[unblock]

6. if i'm understanding correctly (i am a bit confused) it sounds like the trial judge is at fault:

lacking further details, i presume a good da could have made sure there was enough time to seat a new jury. then again, it's the judge who controls the calendar, so maybe not.

main point is that it's not the constitution's fault, we're all entitled to our rights for a reason and the particular guy in this instance being heinous doesn't change that.

to the specific question of is the da at fault, it seems to me it's about 10% da, 90% trial judge.



http://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/03/01/man-sentenced-300-years-child-sex-crimes-freed/

“Prior to the third trial date, there was a jury questionnaire which was drafted by the defense which referenced Mr. McFadden’s prior offense, which both parties were comfortable with, given the court’s ruling that the facts of the prior offense were going to be admissible,” Rubinstein stated. “After the questionnaire had been passed out to the jury, the judge noticed the reference to the prior offense, admitted he had not read the questionnaire and a discussion ensued about whether the defendant could receive a fair trial with the reference.”

“Ultimately the court found that the defense was, in part, at fault for the jury hearing this information, and said that the court of appeals would find it to be plain error to move forward with this jury pool,” Rubinstein stated. “The judge granted a continuance of the trial, over the objection of the defense, finding that the defense’s role in this situation waives his statutory right to his case being tried within 6 months, and reset the case for trial.”

After going on trial and being convicted in 2015, McFadden appealed.

“The court of appeals found that the trial court erred in determining that a continuance was required, disagreed that the delay was chargeable to the defense and therefore violated the defendant’s speedy trial rights. This was found despite the trial court continuing the case to protect the defendant’s Constitutional rights to a fair trial,” Rubinstein explained.

This past June, the Colorado Court of Appeals threw out his conviction, also ruling he could not be retried.

[Nevernose]

9. The DA didnt have to ask for the continuance

But you’re right: there’s plenty of room to blame the trial judge, too. Too often they just do whatever the DA says.

I’m honestly surprised that the appellate court didn’t find some other, actual technicality, to keep a child molester in jail.

[Lint Head]

10. Agreed!

[kcr]

19. But if they hadn't asked for it, then the defense could have claimed the jury was prejudiced.

That really was a neat trick on the defense's part. I'm amazed at this ruling.

[LisaL]

22. Me as well.

I find it hard to even figure out what the technicality is, let alone why it was necessary to overturn the conviction and prevent him from having to stand a new trial.

[unblock]

27. I think were getting the das version of events

Near as I can figure, the jury was going to be tainted, and they blamed the defense so that they could justify scheduling a fresh jury pool after the “speedy trial” window.

The appeals court said it wasn’t the defense’s fault, or at least the da and/or the judge should have prevented the jury from being tainted. Note that the judge admitted not reading the questions that tainted the jury.

The appeal court also said the court didn’t show the continuance was necessary, in other words, the could have squeezed in a trail with a new jury within the “speedy trail” window but chose not to because they thought they could blame the tainting on the defense.

In any event, the “technicality” was the right to a speedy trial.


I guess it makes sense that if they botched the speedy trial thing, they shouldn’t get a chance to try again; that would really defeat the whole point of the right to a speedy trial.

[Lint Head]

11. Someone is covering their ass.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Thank you. n/t

[NCTraveler]

2. Dear DA, this isn't how it works.

Last paragraph from the DA's facebook explanation of the release.

I am appalled that our justice system, in which a jury of the defendant's peers which the defendant helped choose, unanimously found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexually offending against 6 innocent victims, yet the court of appeals vacated the convictions after finding that the trial courts efforts to protect the defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial violate an arbitrary statutory right that the defendant had waived on two prior occasions.

[Shrike47]

5. DA is at fault here. Like Republicans everywhere, he will not admit it.

[kcr]

18. It looks to me like it was the fault of his defense.

From what I read it looks like the judge was actually trying to protect his rights due to a mistake the defense made regarding a disclosure that could potentially prejudice the jury. On top of that the defendant had already waved his right to a speedy trial. This decision makes no sense, nor does the State Supreme Court declining to rule on it. There is precedence regarding extending the 6 months rule if it protects a defendants rights.

[LisaL]

23. In the end defense did great here. The man is out instead of serving his 300 years.

[LisaL]

24. What exactly do you think DA did here?

[Iggo]

7. "Technicality"? Oh, you mean "The Law."

[Sugarcoated]

8. Yep

Now he can go rape more kids...but, yeah, thumbs up

[Iggo]

13. Aw.

[Sugarcoated]

14. Child rape

doesn't bother you? Really, lol?

[Iggo]

16. Where'd you get that idea?

Seriously.

[Sugarcoated]

20. Extremely disturbing that you feel that way

but good to know.

[LisaL]

15. Sometimes the law is an ass.

[Iggo]

17. I agree.

And sometimes a DA fucks up royally and has to let a child-molester out of jail.

And then that DA tries to blame the law instead of himself.

That child molester hits the street because the DA sucks at his job.

[LisaL]

21. And what exactly do you think DA did wrong here?

[EllieBC]

25. I'm glad you're thumbs up about a child molester

getting the chance to hurt more kids.

So open minded and all!

[marybourg]

26. Sometimes a guilty person must

go free to ensure the integrity of the legal system for all of us. Only alternative is the benevolent dictator, but they don't always stay benevolent.