Pervert released from jail gets busted again...

[Archae]

Good.

Colorado man freed from 300-year term for child sex assault arrested

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A Colorado man sent to prison for more than 300 years for child sex assault but released early is back behind bars.

The Gazette reports 46-year-old Michael McFadden was arrested in Colorado Springs on Friday for failing to register as a sex offender in a separate case.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/crime/colorado-man-freed-from-300-year-term-for-child-sex-assault-arrested

[dewsgirl]

1. OMG he just got out, this is absolutely heinous! Whoever was responsible for him

Being released needs to fired immediately.

[Blue_Adept]

4. Heinous? I mean, I get that the registration needed to be dealt with

But heinous?

[LisaL]

9. He got his conviction overturned because of technicality.

Was supposed to serve 300 years.

[Barn Owl]

29. Technicality!!

Remember that! He deserved to die in prison or be executed. A technicality put him back into the community.

We all wonder why bad things happen?? Look at are criminal justice system for most of the answers.

[Mariana]

40. I ask you the same question I asked LisaL.

I see that you don't think much of having a system of laws that the state is required to obey at all times, regardless of the severity of the crimes the defendant has been accused of. What alternative system would you prefer?

[LisaL]

41. Well, I would prefer the one where this guy isn't on the streets.

[Mariana]

55. There are all kinds of ways to achieve that.

Do you have a particular one in mind?

[LisaL]

10. He was released because an appeals court overturned his conviction on a technicality.

Appeals court consists of three judges. They can't be fired.

[Mariana]

13. Why should they be fired?

For upholding the law?

You also left out the part where the Colorado Supreme Court declined to overturn the appeals court ruling.

[LisaL]

21. Sometimes the law is an ass.

[Mariana]

28. Yes, sometimes it is

but we don't get to violate people's rights because of that.

[LisaL]

30. What about all the little boys this guy was accused of molesting?

Do they have any rights? Or only the accused molester?

[Mariana]

33. If they ever get charged with a crime

they get exactly the same rights as this defendant.

I see that you don't think much of having a system of laws that the state is required to obey at all times, regardless of the severity of the crimes the defendant has been accused of. What alternative system would you prefer?

[LisaL]

34. I am not talking about perps. I am talking about victims. They should have rights too.

[Mariana]

36. They have the right

to have the state try their attacker correctly according to the law, so his conviction doesn't get overturned.

[joshcryer]

15. His lawyers were clever, they requested two continuances.

But they got lucky that the judge didn't see the modifications to their questionnaire they submitted until they were halfway through jury selection.

The guy clearly and ambiguously did not get a speedy trial under Colorado statutes. They have 6 months to do it. In this case it took a year.

DA is at fault, the judge in the case is at fault, the appeals court is just being objective.

[LisaL]

22. Explain how DA is a fault for a questionnaire that defense lawyers submitted?

What did DA do wrong?

[joshcryer]

60. The DA should have caught the questionaire request.

The DA themselves should have been the ones to bring it to the judges attention, from the very day of the jury selection.

Instead the DA likely felt that the questionnaire would help his case, let it slide, and hoped the judge would ignore it rather than saying "hey, the defense want this questionnaire modification."

The defense lawyers didn't say anything (that is, press the matter), likewise, because they saw the opportunity to perhaps use it against the justice system if it wasn't caught. And it wasn't.

Judges don't read over every single procedural thing, if they did nothing would ever get done, it's up to the counsel to bring important matters to their attention. Which this guys lawyer's did after the time limit ran out (they waited until the jury pool was poisoned and then brought it up, forcing the judge to do a continuance and pushing the trial past the deadline). And this guy walks because, as in all bureaucracy, every side embraces incompetence and/or dishonesty.

[LisaL]

63. Well, the questionnaire was just fine since appeals court decided the trial shouldn't have been

delayed over it. The error, according to appeals court, was to delay the trial over the questionnaire. Which wasn't the DA's decision, was it?

[joshcryer]

67. If it was brought to the judges attention we wouldn't be here.

The judge would have ruled the same way except there would have been no delay.

It was a classic bait and switch by scummy parties all around.

I did place some fault on the judge here.

[pansypoo53219]

59. on this kind of case. yeah, you are right TECHNICALLY, but you are guilty.

make it 150 instead of 300.

[grantcart]

23. Lazy District Attorney is not a "technicality"

A technicality would be some new application of a rule of evidence that the DA could not be expected to anticipate.

In this case the DA absolutely should have known that the questionaire was going to be tossed.

[LisaL]

25. Questionnaire was put by the defense, not DA.

[grantcart]

26. Exactly and all the DA had to do was to object, he didn't.

[LisaL]

27. Object to defense questionnaire?

Again, defense came up with it for jury selection. How is it DA's fault?

We recognize that 'but for' defense counsel's addition of the language into the jury questionnaire, the trial would have gone forward as originally scheduled. However, under the unique circumstances of this case, we cannot attribute the delay to (McFadden)," said the ruling, written by Judge Jerry N. Jones and concurred with by Judges Craig R. Welling and Dennis Graham. "The prosecutor expressly agreed to the jury questionnaire as drafted by defense counsel, and the trial court accepted it as tendered. The language that the trial court ultimately found to be problematic did not violate any existing authority or order of the court, nor would it have resulted in plain error. Because defendant did not agree to or otherwise occasion a necessary continuance, he cannot be charged with the trial delay."

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/da-appalled-at-ruling-that-frees-man/article_bec7f5d6-1d1e-11e8-ace5-10604b9f7e7c.html

[Mariana]

61. It's right there in that paragraph.

"The prosecutor expressly agreed to the jury questionnaire as drafted by defense counsel, and the trial court accepted it as tendered."

If the prosecutor had not expressly agreed to the jury questionnaire as drafted by defense counsel, but had objected because of the problematic language therein, the trial court probably wouldn't have accepted it as tendered. The delay would not have happened, and McFadden's conviction would have been legal.

[LisaL]

62. I guessed you missed the part where appeals court declared that questionnaire actually was

acceptable and trial shouldn't have been delayed over it. So how in the world do you expect prosecutor to know he had to object to something that apparently wasn't objectionable to begin with?

[Mariana]

66. I guess I did miss that part. It is not in the linked article.

At any rate, it doesn't matter if it was the DA, the trial judge, or both who were at fault. The three appeals court judges, and the Colorado Supreme Court, all appear to agree that McFadden's conviction is invalid.

[marybourg]

2. That was inevitable. nt

[Blue_Adept]

6. it was inevitable that he didn't register within the timeframe he was supposed to?

[marybourg]

7. Inevitable that he would run

afoul of some law or other, with local cops watching him like a hawk for just such an event.

[USALiberal]

3. It's weird to me that a sexual offender has to register but a murderer does not. nt

[marybourg]

8. How many convicted murderers

live in your neighborhood?

[USALiberal]

11. LOL, that is the point. I have no idea. Remember....

people convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter get paroled all the time.

Drunk drivers who have killed people are free. Why not let people know you are living close to one of them.

[NurseJackie]

12. You raise an interesting question.

[bitterross]

31. Right, why not tattoo Scarlet Letters on all of them?

I mean we don't really mean they've paid their due to society after their sentence is up do we? There is no need to re-integrate them into society and try to make them productive members once they've been convicted and served their terms.

No, it's far better to shame and ostracize them from society so they re-offend in some manner. Because that's worked so well historically to date.

Just in case people don't get it:

[LisaL]

32. This particular guy hasn't paid any dues to society as instead of serving 300 years he was released

back onto the streets. I don't have a problem with a Scarlet letter tattooed on him. Because what do you think the chances are he won't try this again?

[bitterross]

35. This particular guy has not been convicted finally according to our laws.

According to our laws this person is not yet convicted of a crime. His conviction was overturned.

We can decide to follow the laws and rules even when we do not like them or we can become the GOP and deplorable. I know my choice.

[LisaL]

37. He was convicted but conviction was overturned.

Over a time delay ultimately caused by his defense putting information in a jury questionnaire, even though that same defense already twice asked for delays. Judge was actually trying to protect suspect's rights when he delayed the trial over the questionnaire, and yet that was used to overturn the conviction. I find that ludicrous. Some laws needs to be changed.

[bitterross]

42. His conviction was overturned. That means he is now innocent until proven guilty.

The passion and desire for vengeance should not override the due course of our process. While one may feel this person is taking advantage of the process that is valid feeling to feel. It is not a legal argument to deprive a person of their rights though.

Convictions get overturned for many reasons. In some cases they allow guilty people to go free and in some cases they free innocent people. In either case, if a re-trial is appropriate then that can happen.

I don't want to be Trump and echo him when he says "Take their guns now and worry about the law later." That's a pretty big opening into take their freedom now and worry about the law later.

Be angry at the DA who was lazy. The DA probably thought the whole thing was a slam-dunk because the passion around the issue that you are showing would be shown by everyone - including the justices. The DA was wrong. The justices looked at the issues without passion and with the rule of law in mind. That is the way it is supposed to work.

[LisaL]

43. He can't be re-tried. The same appeals court that overturned his conviction deciced he can't be

retried. I also find it hard to understand how is DA to blame here. What exactly was DA supposed to do differently?

[bitterross]

44. The Court Decided His Right to A Speedy Trial was Denied. That's not a technicality.

Two things here.

First, the newspapers and TV are calling it technicality because that makes a better headline than:
"Court Finds Defendants' Rights Denied, Overturns Conviction"

A speedy trial is not a technicality it is a right to prevent people from being held in jail for long periods of time without a conviction.

Second, the DA is using the "technicality" argument in his defense of his behavior. It plays a lot better than "I screwed up." If he had done his job and ensured the juror questionnaire was appropriate then this wouldn't be an issue.

Be angry at the DA, be angry at the Judge in the trial. The defense lawyer just did their job and did it well.

[LisaL]

45. Again, questionnaire in question was put up by the defense, not the DA.

So I fail to see how you can blame the DA. Defense asked twice for trial to be delayed, so I guess they weren't all that concerned over suspect's right to speedy trial before judge delayed the trial over that questionnaire that they came up with?

[bitterross]

46. As others have also replied, the DA had a responsibility w/respect to the Questionniare

The DA had a responsibility as an officer of the court and the DA to ensure the questionnaire was appropriate and would pass muster. The DA did not do this. The DA should have objected to the questions that were in the questionnaire that were biased. I have little doubt there is enough precedent with regard to this type of questionnaire that this could have been foreseen by the DA and staff.

Yes, that is his responsibility in order to prevent just this sort of thing from happening.

The basic thing you are refusing to accept is the defendant followed the process and got an outcome of which you disapprove. So now you don't want to agree with the process. That is unfortunate. Because the exact same process has, no doubt, resulted in rulings of which you approve and will continue to do so. We cannot pick and choose only the results we like over the ones we dislike and still call ourselves fair.

[LisaL]

47. Did you read an appeals court decision? I posted a quote.

Apparently questionnaire was just fine, as far as appeals court is concerned, and it was a mistake to delay the trial over it. So WTF are you talking about? The error wasn't something DA did, it was delaying the trial un-necessarily, if you accept that appeal court ruling was correct.

[bitterross]

49. Again, the process was followed and he got an outcome you don't like. Admit that.

You are still nit-picking and you didn't pay any attention to my final statement. Which is the crux of the situation here.

The basic thing you are refusing to accept is the defendant followed the process and got an outcome of which you disapprove. So now you don't want to agree with the process. That is unfortunate. Because the exact same process has, no doubt, resulted in rulings of which you approve and will continue to do so. We cannot pick and choose only the results we like over the ones we dislike and still call ourselves fair.

[LisaL]

52. Isn't it obvious I disapprove of the outcome?

What do you think I have been posting about?

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. It actually is a technicality.

He was not released on the merits of the case. He was released because of the procedure.

[USALiberal]

58. So Due Process should not count for people you just think are evil? nt

[LisaL]

64. Well, he is getting his due process now, being arrested for failure to register

on his previous conviction. I guess the law is the law.

[USALiberal]

65. And glad he is back in jail!!! nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. Who can tell, they don't have to register.

and certain kinds of killers DO kill again after prison.

[GaryCnf]

5. At first I thought "It's Trump"

and I chuckled.

Then I saw it was praising SORNA, one of the most bullshit laws in the country and one of the laws most abused by prosecutors.

[ProudLib72]

14. But I want to know what will happen now

A felony failure to register carries only 1-2 years in prison. That's a far cry from 300 years!

[Archae]

16. He'll serve, get out, and molest another child.

It's inevitable.

[ProudLib72]

19. This is why some people think it's ok to take the law into their own hands

And in this instance, I really wouldn't blame them. But then those who do are punished by the same flawed justice system. I cannot imagine if it had been my child he molested what I would do.

[LisaL]

24. He might not even have to serve anything. His recent conviction was thrown out, and

it wasn't entirely clear if he had to register for his old conviction.

[joshcryer]

17. Apparently the felony happened before the registry.

And there are news reports with it being made official he wouldn't have to register for that old case.

It'll probably be thrown out, too, with him not being advised that he had to register.

[ProudLib72]

18. Ok, found this

"I think it is important for the community to know what occurred so that they can take action at the next election of court of appeals judges Jones, Graham and Welling," District Attorney Dan Rubinstein said in a statement sent to 11 News. "The court of appeals blames both the trial judge and the legislature, but in my opinion, the court of appeals got this one wrong. I have already been in touch with Sen. Ray Scott, Rep. Dan Thurlow, and Rep. Yeulin Willett to change the statute, even though I still believe that they could have affirmed the conviction without the change."

http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-man-sentenced-to--475480273.html

Sounds to me like they really can't do anything. He's going to walk.

[Weed Man]

56. I had Thurlow as a client

World class asshole.

[John Fante]

38. 300 years? I can only imagine what his crimes were.

Sadly, he'll have no criminal record when he's inevitably busted again. These leopards rarely change their spots.

[LisaL]

39. He was accused of befriending families with children, mostly boys, then molesting these boys.

He was convicted but conviction was overturned. He still has a criminal record because of the previous conviction that was not overturned.

[smirkymonkey]

48. He won't stop. He'll never stop.

He'll just move the show on along the road. What a shame.

[LisaL]

50. But we all should take comfort that his right to a speedy trial was protected.

I am sure it is super comforting to all the children who accused him of molestation.

[smirkymonkey]

53. Oh yes. That. Of paramount importance.

Bastard should be six-feet under as far as I'm concerned.

[USALiberal]

57. You must miss the lynch mob days! Nt

[John Fante]

51. Thank you for the info.

What a disgrace. Heads should roll for this.