lawyers pro bono helps teen go free

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
Pro Bono News: O'Melveny Clears Young Man Accused of Possessing a Loaded Firearm
(08/19/2005)
An O'Melveny team recently prevailed in a two-day criminal trial on behalf of a young man wrongly accused of possessing a loaded firearm. The defendant, Mr. Wilson, was acquitted of all charges on August 8. The team comprised counsel Bo Pearl (CC), associate Christa Demeke (LA), and partner Ali Mayorkas (LA).

Mr. Wilson is a 20-year-old man who was raised until the age of 14 by his grandparents because his parents were deemed unfit to care for him. His father was a drug dealer and his mother was a crack addict. When Mr. Wilson was 14, both of his grandparents passed away in a four-month span, and he was placed in a group home. Motivated by the examples set by his grandparents, Mr. Wilson studied and worked hard, graduating from high school while holding down a job. As he approached his 18th birthday and was about to be released from foster care to the streets, Mr. Wilson entered a transitional living program focused on assisting at-risk youth develop the ability to live independently. Mr. Wilson excelled in that program, and he was selected to be one of the counselors for troubled youth. He enrolled in college and became one of the program's primary role models. He maintained his own apartment and became self-sufficient.

In August 2004, Mr. Wilson was at a barbeque in South Los Angeles to reunite with his brother, who had just been released from custody for a firearms violation. Mr. Wilson was walking to a nearby convenience store with his brother and their cousin, who had an extensive criminal record, when the three young men were stopped by the police. A loaded .45 handgun was found on the sidewalk near where the three men had been stopped. Mr. Wilson was charged with possession of the firearm; the officers reported that they had seen him toss it from his waistband. The officers did not question Mr. Wilson's brother or cousin, despite the fact that both had prior firearms violations and Mr. Wilson did not have a criminal record.

Members of the community who had come to know Mr. Wilson were convinced of his innocence; Mr. Wilson denied that he had ever possessed a firearm (let alone on the night in question), and his exemplary behavior on a day-to-day basis was inconsistent with the conduct of a young man who would carry a loaded firearm. O'Melveny took his case on a pro bono basis.

Throughout the criminal trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, approximately 10 members of the community were in attendance, including the president of the transitional living program, the lead youth advocacy counselor, at-risk youth mentors, and some of Mr. Wilson's mentees. Bo Pearl cross-examined the two arresting police officers, and Christa Demeke conducted the direct examination of two critical defense witnesses. At the conclusion of the hard-fought trial, Mr. Wilson was acquitted. He intends to return to his work as a counselor for at-risk youth and continue with his college education.

Pearl and Demeke were praised for their work in trial, their courtroom demeanor, and their dedication to Mr. Wilson's quest to beat the odds of his youth and neighborhood and succeed as an independent adult
:) hey! I guess some PRK lawyers are OK!
 
Am I missing something? There is nothing good about this article. The perp wasn't exonerated for carrying a firearm. They demonstrated to the jury he didn't have a firearm.

In fact he was a good boy and not "a young man who would carry a loaded firearm".

In fact this is exactly the scenario that people who support gun-control must imagine. Guy with gun walking to connivence store. Cops find gun before he gets to store. Can't arrest him for robbery but we can take him off street for the gun. Justice served, crime prevented, everyone safe from the kind of people "who would carry a loaded firearm".

Arrrggggghhhhhhh!
 
Missing the point

"In fact this is exactly the scenario that people who support gun-control must imagine. Guy with gun walking to connivence [sic] store. Cops find gun before he gets to store. Can't arrest him for robbery but we can take him off street for the gun."

In fact, this is an egregious example of police arrogance and incompetence. First, there is NO mention of any physical evidence connecting this man to the gun; no fingerprints (the obvious thing to look for), lube on his hands or clothes or anything in the chain of custody for that gun.

Second, the cops ignore the obvious: Two convicted felons, at least one of which had firearms convictions.

Third, the police go forward against the least probable of the three possible suspects. That's both arrogance and incompetence.

Now we have a poster who thinks the dismissal sends the wrong message. He presumes that it was LEGAL for the 20-year old to be carrying a gun. A 20 - year old in California who's licensed to carry? Don't think so.... :scrutiny:

In short, nothing in the facts makes this a "right to carry" case. It is an abusive police case and was treated as such. :cool:
 
Pretty confusing story. The police testified they saw him throw the gun down? But he gets aquitted because he was a nice guy? That is not the way it is supposed to work. Did other people testify he did not throw the gun? Then the cops should be in big trouble, right? How much did this drama cost the taxpayer?
 
Carry, don't you know, all cops have eyes like mutant super eagles. They see all kinds of things, right through trees, bushes, cars, walls. They even possess ultravision in that they can see at night, in a driving rain storm, smoke, fog, whatever. :D

The crime is WWB and the enhanced felony WWBIG.
 
I agree, Tory, that this isn't a "right to carry" case.

However...

Now we have a poster who thinks the dismissal sends the wrong message. He presumes that it was LEGAL for the 20-year old to be carrying a gun. A 20 - year old in California who's licensed to carry?

My point was about the idea that only a certain kind of person (a BAD person) carries a gun. People who hold that idea don't distinguish between 20 years old and 21 (23 in Missouri) (or 60).

This attitude runs deep in America and it was this very idea that got the kid off. Since he was a good kid he couldn't have possibly had a gun.

This case just reinforces bad ideas about why one would carry a gun.
 
I agree with Vermont Guy. Nevertheless, if this young man (good kid or bad) didn't have the gun or there was reasonable doubt as to that fact, he should have been (and was) acquitted.

We have to do what we can every day to change the misconceptions that fuel antigun-owner bigotry.
 
I'm sure I'm missing the point. But In my mind the is no crime unless the guy was shooting, robbing, carjacking, whatever. Possessing a .45 caliber handgun is about as much a crime as possessing a fire extiguisher.
 
wow,your right!

i goofed-20yrs old is no teen!
i agree it should be no problem to carry a side arm,but since it is I am glad he got off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top