Jane Velez-Mitchell is an idiot

[Amigone201]

I hadn't had the "pleasure" of experiencing Jane Velez-Mitchell until just a few minutes ago, and I don't think I'll indulge again. She's an anchor on one of Headline News' evening shout-fests. She's on right before Nancy Grace, and is basically Nancy Grace's mirror-image. Velez-Mitchell doesn't speak, she shouts. She gets angry and riled up. And she also has that annoying habit of calling her commentators by their first and last names every time she addresses them.

Tonight she was going on about this case, in which a drunk driver, Carmen Huertas, crashed her car and killed one of her preteen passengers on the way to a slumber party.

Velez-Mitchell devoted a good five minutes of screaming with regard to why Huertas entered a not-guilty plea if she was on suicide watch. "How is it that she's SOOOO guilt-stricken over killing this little girl, that she needs to be on suicide watch, and yet she enters a not-guilty plea!?" Velez-Mitchell then went and demanded that all of her guests (none of whom were lawyers) answer this conundrum. The last guest, a psychologist, finally did.

When I heard her ask that question, I almost spit up my dinner. This dumbass gets to host her own show, but I can't even get an office temp job? Wow.

Earth calling Jane Velez-Mitchell: If you don't understand something, either educate yourself about it, or shut up. Those are your options. But don't go on TV and start trying to rile up outrage over something that wouldn't be outrageous at all if you had done ten minutes' worth of research.

The reason this is a dumb question is that no high-profile defendant ever should enter a guilty plea at arraignment. In fact, it's very rare at all that anyone pleads guilty at arraignment. Maybe for something like a pot charge, or shoplifting, or minor trespass, but when you have news cameras? Oh, no. NEVER.

"Not guilty" at arraignment doesn't mean "I'm innocent and the state has to prove me wrong." It just means "We're not ready to plead guilty at this time." Which they aren't. Nobody is ready. Huertas' attorneys aren't, the prosecutors haven't fully investigated, the crime scene paperwork is probably not done. The defense needs to get their discovery, and will undoubtedly file motions.

"Not guilty" has nothing to do with how remorseful you feel about the crime. It would be career suicide for her lawyers if they let her plead now, and Jane Velez-Mitchell should know that. Is it something the general public knows? No, of course not, but the general public isn't hosting a TV show and trying to get people riled up over it either.

What a moron.

ETA: I just discovered a little more info that makes this whole thing even dumber. Jane Velez-Mitchell made her career reporting on crime news. She's been covering courtrooms for YEARS and even wrote a book on crime! How in the hell can she not know basic legal procedure?

[snopes]

"Not guilty" has nothing to do with how remorseful you feel about the crime.

Aside from that, I'd say that most people would feel remorseful (even despondent) if a passenger in a car they were driving was killed, whether or not the accident was their fault.

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by snopes

Aside from that, I'd say that most people would feel remorseful (even despondent) if a passenger in a car they were driving was killed, whether or not the accident was their fault.

Not only that, we don't even know if she was on suicide watch because she was remorseful at all. She may have just not wanted to spend the rest of her life in jail.

[Lawgiver]

Ugh, she and Nasty Grace are cut from the same nauseating cloth.

[Photo Bob]

Originally Posted by Amigone201

Not only that, we don't even know if she was on suicide watch because she was remorseful at all. She may have just not wanted to spend the rest of her life in jail.

Plus, a lot of people (myself included) would feel remorseful maybe even guilty about being involved in an accident that took a life even if that person was in no way responsible.

If a person purposely jumped in front of my car, I hit and killed hir I would still feel remorse and wonder if I could have done something different.

I have not seen this woman's show, but if she is at all like Nancy Grace I probably will not see her show.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Photo Bob

Plus, a lot of people (myself included) would feel remorseful maybe even guilty about being involved in an accident that took a life even if that person was in no way responsible.

Really. I've felt bad in situations when everything's worked out for everyone.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by snopes

Aside from that, I'd say that most people would feel remorseful (even despondent) if a passenger in a car they were driving was killed, whether or not the accident was their fault.

Originally Posted by Amigone201

Not only that, we don't even know if she was on suicide watch because she was remorseful at all. She may have just not wanted to spend the rest of her life in jail.

Or she may have felt that even if she avoided jail, her life would in ruins, either because of her own guilt or because of other people's blame.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by Amigone201

"Not guilty" at arraignment doesn't mean "I'm innocent and the state has to prove me wrong." It just means "We're not ready to plead guilty at this time." Which they aren't. Nobody is ready. Huertas' attorneys aren't, the prosecutors haven't fully investigated, the crime scene paperwork is probably not done. The defense needs to get their discovery, and will undoubtedly file motions.

Or, it simply means, "I'm not admitting to anything. Prove your case." Even the most guilty dirtbag has the right to an impartial trial and to present evident in her own defence. perhaps her claim will be that she was not drunk, but the officer made a mistake. Perhaps she will claim that her drunkeness had nothing to do with the accident and the accident was caused by a mechanical failure in the vehicle could have happened anyway. (in other words, she is guilty of drink driving, but not vehicular homocide)

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

Or, it simply means, "I'm not admitting to anything. Prove your case." Even the most guilty dirtbag has the right to an impartial trial and to present evident in her own defence. perhaps her claim will be that she was not drunk, but the officer made a mistake. Perhaps she will claim that her drunkeness had nothing to do with the accident and the accident was caused by a mechanical failure in the vehicle could have happened anyway. (in other words, she is guilty of drink driving, but not vehicular homocide)

It could mean that later, but pleading not guilty at arraignment means basically nothing. I would estimate about 90% of all defendants (and probably 99.999999% of all felony defendants) enter a plea of not guilty at arraignment simply because the dust has barely settled and the ink isn't even dry on the accusatory instrument.

[Latiam]

Is she the one with the brown hair that looks like a grown out mullet?


My mum watches CNN, and seems unaffected by the fact that it repeats the same shit for hours and hours. Sometimes I''ll get caught by something they mention before a commercial break and wait and they show it 45 minutes later. Who can wait that long? I've usually gone and come back by then.

Our whole system is predicated on the idea of innocent until proven guilty. It's the point of a trial. She also may not feel that she is guilty of precisely what the DA is charging her of - whatever degree of murder or manslaughter. I'm not familiar with what vehicular homicide is, exactly.

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by Latiam

Our whole system is predicated on the idea of innocent until proven guilty. It's the point of a trial. She also may not feel that she is guilty of precisely what the DA is charging her of - whatever degree of murder or manslaughter. I'm not familiar with what vehicular homicide is, exactly.

It's basically what you think it is. Scroll down to 125.12 (2nd degree) and 125.13 (1st degree).

As far as why she entered it, I suppose it's possible, but unlikely. Huertas and her lawyer may not have even discussed entering a plea yet. Arraignments, when you have an attorney, are basically a legally-mandated inconvenience more than anything else. Yeah, maybe there's some paperwork they all needed to share, but that's about it. Huertas and her lawyer undoubtedly just showed up for court because they had to, not because they had anything of substance to say to move the case forward.

"Not guilty" pleas are really meaningless until it gets close to trial time. Right now it's just saying "Don't bother us now, we'll deal with this later."

[Ben_Who]

I could be completely wrong about this - I'm too lazy to do the research and would probably forget to post if I waited until I got home...but if you enter a "guilty" plea, wouldn't that basically relieve the prosecution of the burden of proof?

It occurs to me that if you plead "guilty" that, technically, you've had your trial. If you plead guilty when you're not, or when you aren't ready, and there's a later finding that could reduce or expunge your sentence, you have to get another trial, only this time the burden of proof is on the defense, which is a lot harder.

It seems to me that a "not guilty" plea can always be changed to a "guilty" plea later in the (due) process, but it would be virtually impossible to do it the other way around. Pleading guilty at arraignment would eliminate a trial, destroy the possibility of a plea-bargain, and leave the defendant entirely at the mercy of a sentencing jury or judge - which, in a high-profile case, would not be available in limitless quantities.

I could be wrong about this, or it could vary from one district to the next...

Ben (Law and Order!) Who?

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by Ben_Who

It occurs to me that if you plead "guilty" that, technically, you've had your trial. If you plead guilty when you're not, or when you aren't ready, and there's a later finding that could reduce or expunge your sentence, you have to get another trial, only this time the burden of proof is on the defense, which is a lot harder.

There's no other trial, you didn't have a first one. You pled guilty. The burden never shifts to the defense, but if a defendant believes he was somehow coerced into pleading, or pled when he shouldn't have, he should appeal. Of course, he really should have just saved everyone the grief and said "not guilty" to buy some more time at arraignment. Almost nobody should be pleading guilty at arraignment.

It seems to me that a "not guilty" plea can always be changed to a "guilty" plea later in the (due) process, but it would be virtually impossible to do it the other way around.

Yes, most defendants will do this. Probably 90% or so.

Pleading guilty at arraignment would eliminate a trial, destroy the possibility of a plea-bargain, and leave the defendant entirely at the mercy of a sentencing jury or judge - which, in a high-profile case, would not be available in limitless quantities.

Well, I'm not sure where you're getting this sentencing jury from. There's no trial, so there's no jury, because the defendant is pleading guilty. I suppose if he wanted to be a dick and wait until the trial date to plead, he could, but the jury wouldn't have anything to do with it. They'd just shuffle out of the courtroom pissed off at how much of their time they just wasted.

If you plead guilty, you're not at the mercy of anyone. Defendants plead after their lawyer strikes a deal with the prosecutor that everybody thinks is fair.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Amigone201

They'd just shuffle out of the courtroom pissed off at how much of their time they just wasted.

I think a lot would be pretty happy that they got out of their obligation so quickly. (In Ohio, once you're sworn in and seated, you're prohibited from being on another jury for two years, which would sweeten it even more for those people if it happened here.)