Missouri Supreme Court: Thomas White’s case to remain in adult court:
The State Supreme Court of Missouri has ruled that the trial for Thomas White will remain in adult court.
White was 13 when he discharged a round into the ceiling from a MAC-90 assault rifle at Memorial Middle School in Joplin, Missouri.
Police allege that he tried firing the gun at the principal of the school but the gun had jammed.
How was it not ineffective counsel? Can someone please explain that one to me? I mean his counsel teamed up with the prosecution and didn’t even know that he could call witnesses… I really don’t get this.
Waaaaahhhhh!!!!!!
State Supreme court, baby. Suck it Bryan.
I love how you don’t even bother to say they were right just that you like what they said. Maybe 13 year olds aren’t entitled to due process but I am pretty sure the Gaunt (sp?) ruling said they were. With ineffective counsel arguments I am pretty sure this isn’t the last level they can argue on, just probably the last one they will. So let me ask you this do you think he got effective counsel, if you were charged with a crime would you want a lawyer who didn’t even realize he could call witnesses on your behalf (sounds a little “My Cousin Vinny” to me)?
The state supreme court seems to think you are full of shit and bad arguments, Bryan. Lets see, who should I rely on for sound legal analysis? Bedwetting bisexual virgin? State Supreme Court? Hmmmmm….. Wait a minnit, this is a toughie.
Oh hell, I’ll go with the ones that don’t have a pee problem.
I think you should rely on yourself. Would you consider it effective counsel if you were on trial for what could potentially be a 30 year sentence and your lawyer made you admit things that you wouldn’t have otherwise admitted (and may not have even been true) and then didn’t call any of the potential witness on your behalf. Would you say a grave injustice had occured if that happened? See here in America (as opposed to Nazi Germany for example) we say that you not only have a right to counsel, but a right to effective counsel. I really don’t consider what his lawyer did all that effective, do you? (And please do not say, “BUT THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID…” I really don’t want to hear it, I want to know if you consider that effective counsel, not if someone else did.)
So Missouri is Nazi Germany now? You are so deluded. Up your meds, boy.
I love how you dodged the question. Maybe you couldn’t understand it as I used to many big words. So here it is in my simplist terms possible: If you were on trial for a crime and you receieved a lawyer that did what his lawyer did (got him to admit to more crimes that may not have been true and didn’t even call a witness on his behalf) would you consider that effective counsel? That is all I want to know. If you do not answer that question this time I will consider your answer to be no and think that you truly disagreed with this courts ruling, that you just like it.
I don’t commit crimes, so your desperate point you keep trying to make is moot. The highest court in your state said this kid criminal is getting fair treatment. Stop bitching.
Did I ask if you never committed a crime? You can not ever say you will NEVER be charged with a crime, even if you can say you will never commit a crime (which I would think would be a stretch to begin with as who know what tomarrow will bring you seem like the type thats probably driven home drunk a few times in your life, next time you may be caught). And did I ask what the state supreme court said, no I think I quite specifically said do not quote the court. I asked if YOU felt he receieved effective counsel and if you were ever charged would you want a lawyer like his.
Now remember that both the Miranda and the Gaunt rulings were not made on the basis on the person innocence (in fact Miranda especcially was as guilty as sin) but rather that they were denied constitutionally protected rights. So I really want to know if you consider his counsel effective as that is a constutionally protected right. And if you do consider that effective counsel I must assume you would be willing to hire a lawyer just like his that doesn’t know that they can call witnesses at hearings and helps you incriminate yourself (despite the quite clear words, “Whatever you say can and will be used against you in the court of law”, which I think any lawyer would/should know but a desperate and paniced 13 year old boy might not.) You seem to be like those justices, making their ruling based on his guilt not on the facts in this particular case. Care to explain to me how he received effective counsel or why it doesn’t matter that he didn’t?
What no snappy comeback?
Leave a Reply to BelchSpeak Cancel reply