Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A Jersey appeals court has ruled the man convicted of sexually assaulting and killing the young girl that Megan's Law is named after can press ahead with certain legal appeals -but they've denied his request to be released from custody. Jesse Timmendequas- who's serving a life sentence at New Jersey state prison in Trenton- insists his lawyers were ineffective at the time he was found guilty of murdering 7 year old Megan Kanka back in 1997.
He says giving Timmendequas the right to appeal his conviction means the Kanka family "now has to literally go back to square one - go through these court proceedings, and one cannot even describe the emotional trauma that they're going to experience
"the Legislature and Jon Corzine were wrong to abolish the death penalty for sexual predators who kill children. Now these deranged killers will waste our tax dollars with appeals, and some will be freed.
Timmendequas lived with two other convicted sex offenders across the street from his victim. He lured the girl into his house by offering to show her a puppy. After raping her, he slammed her head onto a dresser, put two plastic bags over her head, and strangled her to death with a belt. He moved her body to his truck, assaulting her once again before placing the body in a wooden toy chest and dumping it in nearby Mercer County Park. The next day, he confessed to investigators and led police to the site. Evidence including bloodstains, hair, and fiber samples, as well as a bite mark matching Megan Kanka's teeth on Timmendequas' hand, led to Timmendequas being found guilty of kidnapping, four counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of felony murder committing murder in the course of a felony.[2]
Appeals have to do with court process, not guilt. they have to do with whether all of the rights of the accused have been protected.
and you can't be outraged that he has the right to appeal. well, you can. but it's silly. EVERY Supreme Court case dealing with the legitimacy of interrogation and evidence deals with someone who is probably guilty. but like any right, if we don't protect them for the people we find abhorrent, those rights don't exist.
Appeals have to do with court process, not guilt. they have to do with whether all of the rights of the accused have been protected.
and you can't be outraged that he has the right to appeal. well, you can. but it's silly. EVERY Supreme Court case dealing with the legitimacy of interrogation and evidence deals with someone who is probably guilty. but like any right, if we don't protect them for the people we find abhorrent, those rights don't exist.
Appeals have to do with court process, not guilt. they have to do with whether all of the rights of the accused have been protected.
and you can't be outraged that he has the right to appeal. well, you can. but it's silly. EVERY Supreme Court case dealing with the legitimacy of interrogation and evidence deals with someone who is probably guilty. but like any right, if we don't protect them for the people we find abhorrent, those rights don't exist.
While I do agree with you.... it seems to me that, sometimes, the letter of the law outweighs common sense. If there was any doubt over his conviction, if there was some evidence - other than his claim that his lawyers ineffectiveness - then I would agree. But, the evidence against him was overwhelming. There was no miscarriage of justice, and his rights do not outweigh the rights of the family to be left in peace. He is not 'the accused, he is 'the guilty'. Of that, there is no doubt.
And, for the record, this man should be dead, not in prison. Raping and murdering a child deserves the death penalty.
Appeals have to do with court process, not guilt. they have to do with whether all of the rights of the accused have been protected.
and you can't be outraged that he has the right to appeal. well, you can. but it's silly. EVERY Supreme Court case dealing with the legitimacy of interrogation and evidence deals with someone who is probably guilty. but like any right, if we don't protect them for the people we find abhorrent, those rights don't exist.
Appeals have to do with court process, not guilt. they have to do with whether all of the rights of the accused have been protected.
and you can't be outraged that he has the right to appeal. well, you can. but it's silly. EVERY Supreme Court case dealing with the legitimacy of interrogation and evidence deals with someone who is probably guilty. but like any right, if we don't protect them for the people we find abhorrent, those rights don't exist.
I appreciate your knowledge and love for the law, but what is the purpose of this? What "justice" will be served? They will only retry him on the murder. The kidnapping is sticking, so he still will be in jail for life. I just don't get it.
The Kankas have been through too much. What about their rights?
What rights were denied? He had a fair trial. He now claims he had "ineffective counsel" which means what? They lost? Can every convicted person appeal based on that?
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that his lawyers sucked. Will they be disbarred? If that's the point, then fine. If there is no admonishment, then what's the fucking point? I still don't get it.
If Corzine had not abolished the death penalty, he would be six feet under. Now the state will spend a zillion dollars on his appeal, which will still result in his conviction.
This shit has got to stop.
He says giving Timmendequas the right to appeal his conviction means the Kanka family "now has to literally go back to square one - go through these court proceedings, and one cannot even describe the emotional trauma that they're going to experience
The Kankas have been through too much. What about their rights?
What rights were denied? He had a fair trial. He now claims he had "ineffective counsel" which means what? They lost? Can every convicted person appeal based on that?
A person convicted at a trial has the right to appeal the conviction at least once. Appeal is not a right under the federal Constitution, but all jurisdictions permit all those who are convicted to make one appeal. Also, the federal Constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to guarantee counsel for all indigent persons for that appeal.
May I appeal my conviction?- ABA Family Legal Guide
Appeals have to do with court process, not guilt. they have to do with whether all of the rights of the accused have been protected.
and you can't be outraged that he has the right to appeal. well, you can. but it's silly. EVERY Supreme Court case dealing with the legitimacy of interrogation and evidence deals with someone who is probably guilty. but like any right, if we don't protect them for the people we find abhorrent, those rights don't exist.
While I do agree with you.... it seems to me that, sometimes, the letter of the law outweighs common sense. If there was any doubt over his conviction, if there was some evidence - other than his claim that his lawyers ineffectiveness - then I would agree. But, the evidence against him was overwhelming. There was no miscarriage of justice, and his rights do not outweigh the rights of the family to be left in peace. He is not 'the accused, he is 'the guilty'. Of that, there is no doubt.
And, for the record, this man should be dead, not in prison. Raping and murdering a child deserves the death penalty.
What rights were denied? He had a fair trial. He now claims he had "ineffective counsel" which means what? They lost? Can every convicted person appeal based on that?
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that his lawyers sucked. Will they be disbarred? If that's the point, then fine. If there is no admonishment, then what's the fucking point? I still don't get it.
If there was any doubt over his conviction, if there was some evidence - other than his claim that his lawyers ineffectiveness - then I would agree. But, the evidence against him was overwhelming. There was no miscarriage of justice, and his rights do not outweigh the rights of the family to be left in peace. He is not 'the accused, he is 'the guilty'. Of that, there is no doubt.
And, for the record, this man should be dead, not in prison. Raping and murdering a child deserves the death penalty.
What rights were denied? He had a fair trial. He now claims he had "ineffective counsel" which means what? They lost? Can every convicted person appeal based on that?
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that his lawyers sucked. Will they be disbarred? If that's the point, then fine. If there is no admonishment, then what's the fucking point? I still don't get it.
George - I have a couple questions.
1. He sat on death row for years. Wouldn't there have been appeals then?
2. What consequence is there for the lawyers? If the judge feels they were "ineffective" will they be admonished? Will their reputations be destroyed?
3. The prosecution had DNA and a confession. How much more did they have to prove?
This story made me sick to my stomach. I have friends who live in that neighborhood. Their daughter was the same age as Megan. They met with Gov. Whitman regarding Megan's Law. This crime affected a whole lot of people. If this judge is wrong, what's his admonishment?
