View Full Version : Lawyers Argue Over Dead Man's Competency to Stand Trial
kg4kww
03-21-2008, 06:51 PM
I keep telling you people, THE DEAD SPEAK!!!
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Attorneys in the sexual assault case of a 91-year-old Palisade man have seen it come to a quick end, after they learned the nursing home resident accused of the crime died nearly a month ago.
Ralph Ridenour died at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Grand Junction on Feb. 22, according to Snell-McLean Funeral Home in Palisade, which handled his arrangements.
The suspect's public defender and officials from the Mesa County district attorney's office were in court Wednesday for a hearing to determine if Ridenour was fit to stand trial — unaware he was dead.
Ridenour was accused of forcible attempted sexual assault, forcible attempted sexual contact and other charges for allegedly grabbing a nurse at the Palisade Living Center, and repeatedly threatening to rape her.
He was due in court April 14.
full story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340230,00.html)
ad4mg
03-21-2008, 06:57 PM
Mindless. I give it one star.
N3IDT
03-21-2008, 07:28 PM
I believe that the INITIAL charge was "ASSULT WITH A DEAD WEAPON"
Groan...........
kc9jwa
03-21-2008, 08:12 PM
People anymore just dont check if your aliv eor deceased. Let me think here this worlds wrapped aound money, so they cant se eover it what's really goin on. My buddy died for a few hours they had him in the body bag, in the metal thing, anyway about hour later he came to life bangin on it someone heard him and was shocked he was alive, so he was in critcal condition in the''ICU'', wonder why. So you can have a near death experience it's tellin him to chnage quit drinkin, or for other various reasons.
KD6NIG
03-21-2008, 08:38 PM
I'm sure the attorneys will file a claim against his estate for expenses in doing the arguments before they found out also.
At $300 an hour, I'm betting.
k9zmd
03-21-2008, 10:32 PM
Nope, Public Defender. You get what you pay for.
k4kyv
03-21-2008, 10:55 PM
Bringing criminal assault charges against a senile 90-years old man in a nursing home makes just about as much sense as the criminal charges that have been recently been brought against kindergärtners for throwing temper tantrums.
We must be living in some kind of alternative reality.
Bringing criminal assault charges against a senile 90-years old man in a nursing home makes just about as much sense as the criminal charges that have been recently been brought against kindergärtners for throwing temper tantrums.
We must be living in some kind of alternative reality.
It does seem that way, sometimes.
Part of the problem is that we (well, some of us) have been conditioned to believe that everything has a govenment solution, and that everything we don't like is actionable in court. Unfortunately, these days almost anything you do (or think about doing) is a violation of some law, ordinance, or regulation.
I know it's hard for some young (under 30) people to believe, but there was a time in this country when a case such as this would never have gotten to court or, if by some fluke it did get before a judge, it would be summarily dismissed as frivolous and unfounded. But that was way back before common sense had been essentially declared illegal.
The article didn't have any details of why the deceased had been charged with attempted sexual battery, but it looks like a typical case of zero-tolerance (read: zero common sense) prosecution. A feeble, confused 91-year old man in a nursing home isn't going to be able to do much other than make idle threats. The poor guy needed medical attention, not legal attention. But, in our hypersensitive/hyperparanoid age, where everything is illegal, this poor guy gets the same kind of attention that a REAL sexual predator would get.
The old geezer allegedly "grabbed a nurse." My late wife worked as a nurse at a nursing home for a while and she told me that such incidents were relatively common, and the nurses just shrugged them off. If an old-timer got to be too "agressive" they would simply segregate him from the other patients or have male staff attend him. Nurses develop thick skins very early in their careers; they have to, otherwise they couldn't do their jobs. They know the difference between being "grabbed" by a 30-year old and a 91-year old and act accordingly. But, like I said, it takes common sense to know the difference - and the courts apparently don't, anymore.
The irony of the whole thing is that the old guy probably didn't even remember doing what he was accused of doing, and he probably enjoyed all the attention. And they didn't even keep track of this dangerous sexual predator, otherwise they would have known he was dead.
Whatta buncha maroons.
K8MHZ
03-21-2008, 11:29 PM
All I can say is if *I* make it to 91 the nurses better watch their......and.....I would probably make some promises to them I wouldn't be able to keep.
Sue me.
ve2nsm
03-21-2008, 11:33 PM
Mindless. I give it one star.
Followed...
WA4TM
03-22-2008, 12:43 AM
Nope, Public Defender. You get what you pay for.
Most times it is worth LESS than the tax payers pay for it!!
w6ire
03-22-2008, 12:51 AM
The old coot probably had an estate, maybe some money. The plan was to get a criminal conviction, then file a civil lawsuit and win a judgment there and swoop in and take his loot before his heirs get a chance. Too bad this case could not have been fast tracked...
KG4JYD
03-22-2008, 05:20 AM
They attorneys were just jealous that the dead guy had more personality than they did! :D
AC4BB
03-22-2008, 09:10 AM
"Sounds like a cold Case" With some "stiff Charges."
N7RJD
03-22-2008, 02:52 PM
I really don't understand the problem. It's obvious he was more competent to stand trial than either of the attorneys would have been.
kg4kww
03-22-2008, 05:01 PM
good point n7rjd :D
The hooker stops doin' you when you die.
:rolleyes:
And, regarding this particular case, the evidence would never have stood up in court anyway.
kg4kww
03-24-2008, 06:16 PM
N6KX that was a really a cold and stiff comment to make.
It does seem that way, sometimes.
Part of the problem is that we (well, some of us) have been conditioned to believe that everything has a govenment solution, and that everything we don't like is actionable in court. Unfortunately, these days almost anything you do (or think about doing) is a violation of some law, ordinance, or regulation.
I know it's hard for some young (under 30) people to believe, but there was a time in this country when a case such as this would never have gotten to court or, if by some fluke it did get before a judge, it would be summarily dismissed as frivolous and unfounded. But that was way back before common sense had been essentially declared illegal.
The article didn't have any details of why the deceased had been charged with attempted sexual battery, but it looks like a typical case of zero-tolerance (read: zero common sense) prosecution. A feeble, confused 91-year old man in a nursing home isn't going to be able to do much other than make idle threats. The poor guy needed medical attention, not legal attention. But, in our hypersensitive/hyperparanoid age, where everything is illegal, this poor guy gets the same kind of attention that a REAL sexual predator would get.
The old geezer allegedly "grabbed a nurse." My late wife worked as a nurse at a nursing home for a while and she told me that such incidents were relatively common, and the nurses just shrugged them off. If an old-timer got to be too "agressive" they would simply segregate him from the other patients or have male staff attend him. Nurses develop thick skins very early in their careers; they have to, otherwise they couldn't do their jobs. They know the difference between being "grabbed" by a 30-year old and a 91-year old and act accordingly. But, like I said, it takes common sense to know the difference - and the courts apparently don't, anymore.
The irony of the whole thing is that the old guy probably didn't even remember doing what he was accused of doing, and he probably enjoyed all the attention. And they didn't even keep track of this dangerous sexual predator, otherwise they would have known he was dead.
Whatta buncha maroons.
While true, there may have been a deadly weapon involved - Viagra which would put this case in a different light. I guess you could say he was under the influence.
K2WH
While true, there may have been a deadly weapon involved - Viagra which would put this case in a different light. I guess you could say he was under the influence.K2WH
And if he didn't take it with a glass of water and allowed the pill to get stuck in his throat, he probably died of a stiff neck.
kg4kww
03-24-2008, 11:55 PM
BTW when you pass on The Viagra affect wears off
BTW when you pass on The Viagra affect wears off
Just curious, but how do you know that?
K2WH
kg4kww
03-26-2008, 03:59 AM
K2WH OM, your UT knows these things as a matter of having chatted with the ME who carved you up like a Thanksgiving Turkey. :D
You see even the dead can be put on the stand to testify in court. This
article should prove that.
ac4ut
03-26-2008, 12:32 PM
K2WH OM, your UT knows these things as a matter of having chatted with the ME who carved you up like a Thanksgiving Turkey. :D
You see even the dead can be put on the stand to testify in court. This
article should prove that.
I have witnessed the "brain dead" testifying on several occasions, however in my expert opinion I would think it would be very easy to dig up some dirt on the witness.
I would also take the position that someone is attempting to bury the facts.
If he gets trapped in cross examination he could dig himself into a hole.
This particular witness should definitely attempt to "think outside the box".
I once saw a dog testify but the plantiffs attorney was called down for leading the witness.
I'll stop now!
W2LYS
03-27-2008, 07:39 AM
A lawyer is cross-examining a doctor on the stand about whether or not he had checked the pulse of the deceased before he signed the death certificate.
"No," the doctor said, "I did not check his pulse."
"And did you listen for a heartbeat?" said the lawyer.
"No, I did not," said the doctor.
"So," said the lawyer, "when you signed the death certificate, you had not taken steps to make sure he was dead."
The doctor, having enough of the lawyer's redicule, stated, "Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out practicing law somewhere."