N.J. Man Serving 7 Years for Guns He Legally Owned

[Montrovant]

QW, you may be right, and that may just be a poorly worded statement, but 'Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest' would indicate to me that he arrived in NJ a week prior, not that he left CO a week prior. He had done it, past tense, meaning it was completed.

I'm not trying to nit-pick or play semantics games so much as explain why that statement, at least, points to him having been driving around NJ with the guns in his car, not while in the process of moving.

Oh, and my last post about him not testifying WAS nit-picking I meant it to be taken lightly, hence the tongue smiley!

 

[jillian]

They are asking for the governor to intervene to avoid the delays involved in an appeal, not because the appeals are exhausted. They just filed the first appeal, and I am sure you know that will take months, and even if the appellate court agrees with the defense it will not mean he gets out of prison, or even a new trial, because the prosecution can appeal if they loose.

My guess is this is a long shot because Christie is pretty willing to take stances that are controversial in defense of his principles. I doubt it will happen, but if it does it will have been worth the time and effort.

I can't imagine the governor stepping over proper court channels before appeals are exhausted. nor do i think it would be appropriate for him to do so. Like I said, I think the sentence is excessive. But I also think the guy should do jail time. Him doing it while the matter works its way through the appeals court resolves that issue, imo.

You think he should do jail time because the presiding judge ignored the law? Would you think the same if this guy was your client, or a family member? Remember that he actually researched the law in advance, and discussed the applicable laws with the New Jersey State Police, which certainly qualifies in anyone's book as a good faith effort to make sure he was not breaking the law.

The presiding judge DIDN'T ignore the law. The man and his defense attorney decided, for whatever reason, not to offer the guy's testimony. The attorneys' assertion that the man was moving wasn't admissible evidence as the attorney has no first hand knowledge of the circumstances. It was raised for the sole purpose of trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

Why do you think the gentleman didn't testify? Not that he had to, but if I were his defense attorney, and I was relying on the jury to find my client was in the process of moving, I'd have put him on the stand. The jury wants to hear from defendants on that type of issue. When they don't, they feel they're being duped.

And the reality is, the man was no longer in transit and violated the law. Is 7 years excessive? Yes, I think so. But I absolutely think there was basis for the conviction. The judge did nothing wrong...

which answers my question as to why they're trying to bypass the appeals process.

 

[jillian]

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

The judge DIDN'T block him from telling the truth. He excluded the inadmissible "testimony" of the attorney.

You think the attorney knew what the guy was doing at and prior to the arrest? Or is his client telling him a story? If the client wanted the jury to hear it, they'd have told the jury.

I think the more I read about this, the more it is clear that the guy rode around NJ with his guns in his car for a week... in violation of the law....

Apparently, the jury thought so, too.

And if this were anything but a gun crime, I'm going to wager so would you.

 

[WillowTree]

Hope this one goes to the Supreme Court. Seven years in prison is just wrong. People who rape little children get way less than that.

 

[jillian]

Hope this one goes to the Supreme Court. Seven years in prison is just wrong. People who rape little children get way less than that.

really? you have sentencing charts for child rapers?

it's not going to the supreme court.

 

[WillowTree]

Hope this one goes to the Supreme Court. Seven years in prison is just wrong. People who rape little children get way less than that.

really? you have sentencing charts for child rapers?

it's not going to the supreme court.

I don't need sentencing charts for child rapers. counselor. and the man has a right to own guns. it may go to the supreme court.

 

[jillian]

Hope this one goes to the Supreme Court. Seven years in prison is just wrong. People who rape little children get way less than that.

really? you have sentencing charts for child rapers?

it's not going to the supreme court.

I don't need sentencing charts for child rapers. counselor. and the man has a right to own guns. it may go to the supreme court.

you made an assertion that child rapers get "way less than" 7 years. prove it.

as to the sentence. i think it's a lot. but the guy is guilty.

as i said, i don't think jonathan pollard should be in prison for life and i think retarded people should be exempt from the death penalty.

but jonathan pollard is rotting in prison and texas fries people even when they are mentally deficient.

 

[Ernie S.]

I question his demeanor during the arrest and subsequent trial.

I agree he was not given a fair trial.

OTOH, why was he packing hollow points? Recently divorced suicidal guy with multiple large magazines and hollow points sounds like a tragedy in the making.

He had hollow points because they do the most damage. When you need to use a firearm in self defense, the object is to kill, or at least do enough damage so that you end the threat.

 

[editec]

This story reads like a terrible miscarriage of justice.

The guy (and his guns) obviously constituted no threat to society.

 

[Intense]

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

The judge DIDN'T block him from telling the truth. He excluded the inadmissible "testimony" of the attorney.

You think the attorney knew what the guy was doing at and prior to the arrest? Or is his client telling him a story? If the client wanted the jury to hear it, they'd have told the jury.

I think the more I read about this, the more it is clear that the guy rode around NJ with his guns in his car for a week... in violation of the law....

Apparently, the jury thought so, too.

And if this were anything but a gun crime, I'm going to wager so would you.

He definitely should not have been riding around with the guns in his trunk. Some of the State Laws really suck when it comes to gun ownership, and that is not right. There may have been something more to this one though that could easily have ended up on the 6 PM news. Who can say. That said, some State and City Gun Registration Laws are Barbaric, that also needs to be addressed. I hope he gets checked out in the head, and I hope he gets a reduced sentence on Appeal.

 

[WillowTree]

really? you have sentencing charts for child rapers?

it's not going to the supreme court.

I don't need sentencing charts for child rapers. counselor. and the man has a right to own guns. it may go to the supreme court.

you made an assertion that child rapers get "way less than" 7 years. prove it.

as to the sentence. i think it's a lot. but the guy is guilty.

as i said, i don't think jonathan pollard should be in prison for life and i think retarded people should be exempt from the death penalty.

but jonathan pollard is rotting in prison and texas fries people even when they are mentally deficient.

pages and pages.



child rapist gets probation - Bing

 

[hboats]

really? you have sentencing charts for child rapers?

it's not going to the supreme court.

I don't need sentencing charts for child rapers. counselor. and the man has a right to own guns. it may go to the supreme court.

you made an assertion that child rapers get "way less than" 7 years. prove it.

as to the sentence. i think it's a lot. but the guy is guilty.

as i said, i don't think jonathan pollard should be in prison for life and i think retarded people should be exempt from the death penalty.

but jonathan pollard is rotting in prison and texas fries people even when they are mentally deficient.

You really don't think that someone who sold classified information to Israel, South Africa and Pakistan and then continued to break nondisclosure agreements during his trial should be sentenced to the allowable sentence?

Rick

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, you may be right, and that may just be a poorly worded statement, but 'Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest' would indicate to me that he arrived in NJ a week prior, not that he left CO a week prior. He had done it, past tense, meaning it was completed.

I'm not trying to nit-pick or play semantics games so much as explain why that statement, at least, points to him having been driving around NJ with the guns in his car, not while in the process of moving.

Oh, and my last post about him not testifying WAS nit-picking I meant it to be taken lightly, hence the tongue smiley!

I realize that the statement is open to interpretation, but that interpretation should have been up to the jury, not the judge. Even if the weapons had been sitting in is car in NJ for a week, he was obviously in the process of moving them because his entire car was packed with his belongings.

If I jumped you about something that was a joke I apologize. I sometimes get jumped myself about jokes, so I know the feeling. Funny thing is, I always know when I am joking, so I never understand why other people can't figure it out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't imagine the governor stepping over proper court channels before appeals are exhausted. nor do i think it would be appropriate for him to do so. Like I said, I think the sentence is excessive. But I also think the guy should do jail time. Him doing it while the matter works its way through the appeals court resolves that issue, imo.

You think he should do jail time because the presiding judge ignored the law? Would you think the same if this guy was your client, or a family member? Remember that he actually researched the law in advance, and discussed the applicable laws with the New Jersey State Police, which certainly qualifies in anyone's book as a good faith effort to make sure he was not breaking the law.

The presiding judge DIDN'T ignore the law. The man and his defense attorney decided, for whatever reason, not to offer the guy's testimony. The attorneys' assertion that the man was moving wasn't admissible evidence as the attorney has no first hand knowledge of the circumstances. It was raised for the sole purpose of trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

Why do you think the gentleman didn't testify? Not that he had to, but if I were his defense attorney, and I was relying on the jury to find my client was in the process of moving, I'd have put him on the stand. The jury wants to hear from defendants on that type of issue. When they don't, they feel they're being duped.

And the reality is, the man was no longer in transit and violated the law. Is 7 years excessive? Yes, I think so. But I absolutely think there was basis for the conviction. The judge did nothing wrong...

which answers my question as to why they're trying to bypass the appeals process.

The judge barred the defense from preventing evidence that he was moving. That was a finding of fact, not of law, and should have gone to the jury. Even if he had testified, that still would have been against the improper rules, unless the prosecution was stupid enough to ask him why he had the weapons in the vehicle.

Irregardless of that, he has a fucking Constitutional right to remain silent. I personally do not care why he exercised his constitutional rights, and the fact that you are attempting to impeach him by pointing out that he did not testify proves that you know your position is weak. You are a fucking lawyer, and you know better than even to raise this as an issue.

Again, they are not attempting to bypass the appeals process, they are hoping to keep him out of jail when he did not break the law. Being a lawyer you should know that the reason that pardon exists in American law is to highlight injustices in the law. Since this case seems to be tailor made to do just that why shouldn't they apply for a pardon? How is using part of the legally available appeals system short circuiting it anyway?

Are you actually trying to prove that ConHog's repeated accusations that you are not a lawyer are true, or did you just think that I, not being a lawyer, wouldn't understand how the system really works?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

The judge DIDN'T block him from telling the truth. He excluded the inadmissible "testimony" of the attorney.

You think the attorney knew what the guy was doing at and prior to the arrest? Or is his client telling him a story? If the client wanted the jury to hear it, they'd have told the jury.

I think the more I read about this, the more it is clear that the guy rode around NJ with his guns in his car for a week... in violation of the law....

Apparently, the jury thought so, too.

And if this were anything but a gun crime, I'm going to wager so would you.

How is barring the defense from presenting the evidence that he called the state police to verify the laws inadmissible testimony from the attorney? How is the judge barring the defense providing evidence that he was moving, or even that federal law actually supersedes state law and provides an exception while a person is moving, barring testimony of the lawyer?

The jury, not being able to decide the facts in the case, or even being aware that the law allowed an exception if a person was moving, believed it had no choice but to convict based on the evidence they were presented. If they actually believed what you think they believed why did they send multiple notes to the judge asking for clarification on the law? If they had been aware of jury nullification and their right to ignore any law they felt was flat out wrong they would have returned a verdict of not guilty. Unfortunately, the justice system is designed to keep juries ignorant about this option, going as far as to remove educated jurors from the jury.


The more you try to convince me that you are right, the more I realize that you are grasping at straws.

 

[WillowTree]

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

The judge DIDN'T block him from telling the truth. He excluded the inadmissible "testimony" of the attorney.

You think the attorney knew what the guy was doing at and prior to the arrest? Or is his client telling him a story? If the client wanted the jury to hear it, they'd have told the jury.

I think the more I read about this, the more it is clear that the guy rode around NJ with his guns in his car for a week... in violation of the law....

Apparently, the jury thought so, too.

And if this were anything but a gun crime, I'm going to wager so would you.

How is barring the defense from presenting the evidence that he called the state police to verify the laws inadmissible testimony from the attorney? How is the judge barring the defense providing evidence that he was moving, or even that federal law actually supersedes state law and provides an exception while a person is moving, barring testimony of the lawyer?

The jury, not being able to decide the facts in the case, or even being aware that the law allowed an exception if a person was moving, believed it had no choice but to convict based on the evidence they were presented. If they actually believed what you think they believed why did they send multiple notes to the judge asking for clarification on the law? If they had been aware of jury nullification and their right to ignore any law they felt was flat out wrong they would have returned a verdict of not guilty. Unfortunately, the justice system is designed to keep juries ignorant about this option, going as far as to remove educated jurors from the jury.


The more you try to convince me that you are right, the more I realize that you are grasping at straws.

 

[liebuster]

I realize that the statement is open to interpretation, but that interpretation should have been up to the jury, not the judge. Even if the weapons had been sitting in is car in NJ for a week, he was obviously in the process of moving them because his entire car was packed with his belongings.
QUOTE]

Bolded for truth.

He was still in the process of moving and there for exempt from the law

 

[MikeK]

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

The judge DIDN'T block him from telling the truth. He excluded the inadmissible "testimony" of the attorney.

You think the attorney knew what the guy was doing at and prior to the arrest? Or is his client telling him a story? If the client wanted the jury to hear it, they'd have told the jury.

I think the more I read about this, the more it is clear that the guy rode around NJ with his guns in his car for a week... in violation of the law....

Apparently, the jury thought so, too.

And if this were anything but a gun crime, I'm going to wager so would you.

Jillian,

Let's call it a technical offense rather than a "gun crime" and focus on the clear absence of mens rea.

This guy is from a state where guns are culturally commonplace, a circumstance which conditioned his essential thinking about them. He demonstrated his intention and willingness to follow the law by calling the NJ State Police in advance of coming here and asking for instructions -- which he believed he was following. If he knew how utterly irrational the NJ gun laws are I'm sure he would have been more attentive to the finer technical aspects.

It's not as if he were carrying a loaded, illegally obtained gun on his person and has a criminal history. His record is clean and the guns were legally owned, unloaded, in fact disassembled, packed at the bottom of his luggage and in the trunk of his car. How less "criminal" does it get?

This offense calls for a fine and maybe some community service at most. So to send this man to prison for seven years is not only insane, it is sadistically so. I know of a situation (in New York) in which men who committed forcible rape and aggravated assault were sentenced to only five years. So considering the brutally excessive punishment imposed on this man we must also consider the cost of a seven year prison term at around $50,000 a year. That's $350,000 the NJ taxpayers are burdened with.

For what purpose?

 

[chanel]

Update:

Brian Aitken, who was convicted of illegally possessing two handguns that he had legally purchased in Colorado, will be spending Christmas out of prison.

Gov. Chris Christie commuted Aitken's sentence, from seven years to time served, according to an order the governor signed today.

Gov. Chris Christie commutes sentence of man convicted of having guns in N.J. illegally | NJ.com

 

[Montrovant]

Thanks for the update Chanel. That sounds like a good move by the governor.