Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:44 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 
 Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the evide 
Author Message
 Post subject: Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the evide
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:33 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
http://www.startribune.com/local/46672927.html

Quote:
This court is satisfied that Huggett did what he reasonably should have done to have the evidence preserved; namely, he told Detective Finch precisely where the voice mail was located, he summarized it to her immediately after the incident as best he could, and he even went so far as to suggest she listen to it.


1) I was afraid for my life
2) There's the evidence
3) Lawyer lawyer lawyer

Step 1 and 2 are important too and may be the only reason this case was dismissed without a jury trial.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:36 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:51 pm
Posts: 172
I'm confused as to why this guy was even charged?
b


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:04 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
Because he shot that poor fellow, who just turning his life around, and only wanted to talk to his ex and the kids... :roll: </snark>

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the e
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:02 am
Posts: 816
Location: South of the River Suburbs
MostlyHarmless wrote:
http://www.startribune.com/local/46672927.html

Quote:
This court is satisfied that Huggett did what he reasonably should have done to have the evidence preserved; namely, he told Detective Finch precisely where the voice mail was located, he summarized it to her immediately after the incident as best he could, and he even went so far as to suggest she listen to it.


1) I was afraid for my life
2) There's the evidence
3) Lawyer lawyer lawyer

Step 1 and 2 are important too and may be the only reason this case was dismissed without a jury trial.


To beat the dead horse a little more, the lawyer could have said the same things after a brief wait.

I'm still of the school of "I need to speak to my attorney and I don't consent to any search" thought. Better that way-there are good LEOs out there, but taking your chances at finding a good one is like naively picking mushrooms in the wood and thinking they'll all make a good meal. Just because you ate one last week and nothing bad happened doesn't mean the next one won't really mess up your life (or kill you).

_________________
My YouTube Videos

"We're either gonna be the best of friends or there's gonna be a whole lotta shootin' goin' on."

"I think it's a good thing for serving cops to mix with non-cops in a situation where they understand that they aren't in charge." -JoelR

"You'd be amazed at the things a bullet can stop." -Old Irish Proverb


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the e
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:51 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
Binky .357 wrote:
To beat the dead horse a little more, the lawyer could have said the same things after a brief wait.

I'd love to cooperate, officer. I'll have my lawyer call the station to arrange a convenient time for an interview.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:04 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
My take: say as little as possible. If evidence is likely to be not preserved, then let the officer know. ie the attacker's weapon is laying in the street and a street sweeper is rumbling down the road towards it. It might be a good idea to point that out... otherwise shut up.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:49 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
There is nothing in this story that a lawyer couldn't have handled the next day...or even the next week.

This is entirely due to the ineptitude of the responding police and investigators that the evidence was lost.

Actually it probably would have been better if the lawyer had handled this. He could have documented it better. Otherwise in this situation you're depending on the officer's integrity and honesty to admit that yeah he told us about that evidence but golly gosh we just didn't do anything about it.

_________________
http://www.eckernet.com
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:12 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Minneapolis
It doesn't say anything about it in the article, other than the guy "broke in" to the home, but that clearly sounds like the guy was hostile. He broke in to the home. Isn't that evidence enough that this clown wasn't supposed to be there and that he was acting violently?

_________________
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~ The Dalai Lama

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~ Mahatma Gandhi


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:21 pm 
Gun-Toting Liberal

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:14 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Ellsworth, WI
pablobear wrote:
It doesn't say anything about it in the article, other than the guy "broke in" to the home, but that clearly sounds like the guy was hostile. He broke in to the home. Isn't that evidence enough that this clown wasn't supposed to be there and that he was acting violently?


You would think so but in Minnesota and Wisconsin sometimes government gets confused about who the victim is.

_________________
http://scott-randomassociations.blogspot.com/

"We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments." Nordyke v. King 4/20/09


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group