Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"IS JUSTICE DELAYED REALLY JUSTICE DENIED?"

8 Comments -

1 – 8 of 8
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah' the classic, "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" maneuver. I think John Rose teaches this course at various law schools.

I know if I was innocent, as Eddie Perez keeps claiming, I would want a trial right away so I could prove it and move on. In Eddie's case the entire city could move forward.

But then again, if I knew I was likely to lose I would stall to the bitter end.

April 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

notice the last line on his motion to move the jury to another venue?

Basically Santos wants to get a shot at picking a second jury if he doesn't like the first one. How fair is that to the prosecution?

I'm no lawyer but the only motion out of those 4 that makes any reasonable sense is allowing Perez to not be present at the jury selection.

April 1, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wake up call Eddie. You will not get a "fair" trial no matter who the jury is or where the trial is held. Your case and mug shot made the national news. P.S. People, no matter their race or ethnicity are tired of corrupt politicians. If the word on the street is correct, then it is one of your Park Estreeet boyz who rolled on you to begin with. Viva la justicia!!! My adice, go visit one of your relatives on la isla, and then get "lost" in El Yunque like the Macheteros did...

April 1, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

stalling in hopes of locking in his pension before trial? sounds like he's not very confident of the evidence going his way.

April 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Kevin....the city is only obligated to pay Eddie's lawyer if the state either dismisses the charges or there is a not guilty verdict...

April 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce what if he takes a deal? Is that the same as pleading guilty?

April 2, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

If he pleads guilty in a deal the City isnt obligated to pay his lawyer bills and he must pay those bills himself.

April 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

I have communicated with Councilman Ritter on the matter of paying Eddie's legal bills. He seems to be of the opinion that Statute (in particular, Sec. 7-101a) requires Eddie to be compensated. I believe this is a (willing?) misreading of the statute, which in my humble opinion refers to civil suits for damages NOT criminal corruption prosecutions. It is his opinion that in the event of a conviction Eddie would have to reimburse the City. It would be adding injury to insult to taxpayers to have to pay for his defense for taking a gratuity for his public service (to the taxpayers), even if he is acquitted. I would note that as best I can determine the City of Bridgeport never gave any $ to Ganim for legal work on his behalf. Nor, can I find any indication that when he was convicted he had to return $ to the city. Actually, I think if Hartford does pay for Eddie's legal fees there would be a case to sue authorities down there for "malicious, wanton or wilful act or ultra vires act, on the part of such officer or employee while acting in the discharge of his duties." (Sec. 7-101a)

April 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot