AZ Court Confirms Loughner's Request to Plead Guilty

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns has issued this order in the Jared Loughner case:

A hearing on the defendant’s competency is scheduled for Tuesday, August 7 at 11:00 a.m. in Tucson. This Order confirms that hearing will go forward. If the Court finds the defendant competent, his counsel has requested a follow-on change of plea hearing.

Accordingly, assuming the Court finds the defendant competent, it will also consider whether
to accept the defendant’s proffered pleas at the August 7 hearing.

Our earlier post on the plea deal is here.

< Kim Dotcom Back in Court Today in New Zealand | Dick Morris Predicts Romney Landslide! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    defense site? (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:26:57 PM EST
    Wouldn't many defense attorneys consider an NGRI plea given that Loughner was deemed unable to aid in his defense from the moment he was arrested?  I have been retained by defense attorneys who had much softer cases than this.  I would review the history and contemporaneous professional examinations and examines the defendant.  Of course the prosecution would retain their own experts.  Is this an inherently ill-informed question to ask of a site which prides itself on being on the side of defendants in criminal trials?
    Even if he were convicted, the abundance of evidence of psychosis would likely lead a judge (and many families of victims) to ask for LWOP rather than death.  
    Also, he could refuse medication in prison if he were convicted and he could not be executed if he were psychotic--thus, de facto LWOP even with a death penalty.
    Why cave in and plead guilty now when an NGRI has the potential for looser sentencing and even community passes and release in 20-30 years if he were mentally healthy and compliant with treatment?

    "Arizona Court" (none / 0) (#2)
    by bmaz on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 03:08:23 AM EST
    Just because I care, I would like to make perfectly clear, Larry Burns is NOT what i would traditionally call an "Arizona Court".

    For a plethora of reasons, even if a bit early for my taste, I think this is the right result and, if it is on the offer, might as well get on with it.

    That said, there are issues (including why the State of Arizona was not primary over the Feds).  

    And, please, as screwed up as AZ is on everything holy, I know Larry Burns, and I still wish to make clear he does not have squat to do with my otherwise still lame state or our court system here.

    Just sayin.....