GUILTY WI - Samuel Aegerter, 30, killed in road rage incident, Janesville, 4 June 2010

[fran]

I believe what the defendent did was wrong, but I don't get it?

The DA made a bogus deal just to get him to confess and agree to no trial?

I didn't know that the judge could deny the plea deal after it was accepted. Well, he accepted the plea, but then gave him the higher sentence. He would have been better off fighting the charge.

Condolences to the def, the victim and their family and friends. There were no winners here, except the state who saved money by not having to try the case.

JMHO
fran

 

[believe09]

This is appeal worthy. I am shocked....you are right Fran, the defendent would have been better off fighting the charge and dragging everyone through a trial.

There are no winners-45 years against a life.

I am going to check and see if and when he might be eligible for parole. There is something we are missing here....a really big piece of this puzzle.

 

[believe09]

The victim's family is out for blood-and I am not saying they are wrong, but they succeeded in receiving an equivelent of a life sentence, and now they are filing a wrongful death lawsuit? So now they are waging war on Humphrey's family.

The anger and sorrow must be unbearable, but I dont understand. God Bless them all.

 

[mytown2]

Well I decided to go to this hearing because of this blog. Here is what I
learned. Yes there were things done by persons to possibly frame Hall. The D.A.
brought up the bogus letter written by a friend of the defendant and his wife
that clearly looked and sounded pretty bad. The D.A. also disclosed that
Humphrey had buried and then dug up the gun then threw it in the river. Hall was
only a witness to Humphrey burying it the first time. The D.A. also brought up
the cell phone that Humphrey borrowed, the fact that he changed clothes and
tried to make his motorcycle look different. The wife testified in one moment
how loving etc... her husband is. Then in he next stating he has anger issues.
That she had asked him to get help for this, that he could benefit from this.
The D.A. and Judge focused alot on the fact that Humphrey shot twice, that it
was the second shot that killed this man, that it was intentional. It also was
not a matter that there had been a
plea agreement to force Humphrey to confess. He already had last June. The
prosecution and defense attorney came to what they believed would be a a fair
sentence 20 years because 5 extra years were being added no matter what for use
of a dangerous weapon, but the Judge did not agree. The slain mans family
members also thanked Hall publicly for all he had done. Was an interesting
hearing, sure looked beyond a reasonable doubt that Humphrey would not have
turned himself in. It also looks like the ones who tried to frame Hall or blame
Hall did not do Humphrey any good with his sentencing. In fact looks like they
made it worse.
I think it was a fair sentence. Should have never happened in the first place.
No need for guns to be carried around while out having beers.Looks as though
another poster attended as well. Looks like questions for sure got answered
about cell phone, gun etc. Funny this wasnt already posted. But theres the scoop
for those that want to know.

 

[RLynne]

This is appeal worthy. I am shocked....you are right Fran, the defendent would have been better off fighting the charge and dragging everyone through a trial.

There are no winners-45 years against a life.

I am going to check and see if and when he might be eligible for parole. There is something we are missing here....a really big piece of this puzzle.

I haven't been following this case super-closely, but thought I'd weigh in (I am verified as an attorney here at WS, and did practice in Wisconsin, although am not currently practicing (I practiced mostly family law, although did some criminal law, mostly misdemeanors)).

1. In Wisconsin, judges are not bound by plea agreements between defendants and DAs. While judges often follow the agreements, they don't have to, and can impose anything up to the maximum sentence. Defendants are warned of this, by their attorney, by mandatory plea forms signed and submitted to the court at the time of a plea, and by the judge prior to accepting the plea.

In Wisconsin, any defendant has an automatic right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. When judges depart from a plea agreement, this is often brought up in the appeal, but there is a very high burden to overcome.

2. There is no longer parole in Wisconsin. In the early 2000's, Wisconsin enacted what is known as Truth in Sentencing legislation (known as TIS, there was both a TIS I and TIS II). For anybody sentenced for a crime committed after, I think, 2003, parole does not exist. The 45 years will be served in prison with no chance of any sort of reduction whatsoever (there are a few programs, such as boot camp, earned release, etc. to lessen a sentence, but a judge has to specify someone is eligible to participate, and the judge specified that he wasn't eligible). The 10 years "extended supervision" (which is kind of like parole/probation) will be served after the 45 years (any violation, even if it occurs after 9 years of ES, could result in the entire 10 years ES being served in prison).

You can look up the sentence at wcca.wicourts.gov, since the article linked wasn't the clearest.

Not weighing in on whether this was the right thing or not, just weighing in to explain some things.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Thank you RLynne!
That does clear a few things up.

 

[believe09]

THANK YOU RLynne. I was gobsmacked.

 

[mssheila]

Mytown - I only know of one person on here that said they knew Mr. Humphrey or his family, other than Mrs. Humphrey. There are 17 people in our little webslueth group and every single one agrees that guy 2 should have consequences to pay and none of us are personally involved nor live in your city. I find it difficult to believe most people in your city view him as a hero. I agree with Kimberly, criminals are not heroes, especially guy 2. Have you looked at his background? She's also right, people who haven't done anything wrong don't need ANY kind of immunity.

Not one person I know in Janesville views Rich Hall as anything but a co-conspirator who should be right there next to Jim in Dodge Correctional Institution.

You guys couldn't be more right. Innocent people don't need immunity. :maddening:

 

[mssheila]

Well I decided to go to this hearing because of this blog. Here is what I
learned. Yes there were things done by persons to possibly frame Hall. The D.A.
brought up the bogus letter written by a friend of the defendant and his wife
that clearly looked and sounded pretty bad. The D.A. also disclosed that
Humphrey had buried and then dug up the gun then threw it in the river. Hall was
only a witness to Humphrey burying it the first time. The D.A. also brought up
the cell phone that Humphrey borrowed, the fact that he changed clothes and
tried to make his motorcycle look different. The wife testified in one moment
how loving etc... her husband is. Then in he next stating he has anger issues.
That she had asked him to get help for this, that he could benefit from this.
The D.A. and Judge focused alot on the fact that Humphrey shot twice, that it
was the second shot that killed this man, that it was intentional. It also was
not a matter that there had been a
plea agreement to force Humphrey to confess. He already had last June. The
prosecution and defense attorney came to what they believed would be a a fair
sentence 20 years because 5 extra years were being added no matter what for use
of a dangerous weapon, but the Judge did not agree. The slain mans family
members also thanked Hall publicly for all he had done. Was an interesting
hearing, sure looked beyond a reasonable doubt that Humphrey would not have
turned himself in. It also looks like the ones who tried to frame Hall or blame
Hall did not do Humphrey any good with his sentencing. In fact looks like they
made it worse.
I think it was a fair sentence. Should have never happened in the first place.
No need for guns to be carried around while out having beers.Looks as though
another poster attended as well. Looks like questions for sure got answered
about cell phone, gun etc. Funny this wasnt already posted. But theres the scoop
for those that want to know.

In case you didn't read what I actually wrote, I spoke only about how mine, jim's and other friend's families feel- AND how the Aageters must have felt. I spoke about how the sentencing of a man to the rest of his life in prison was traumatic for his friends and family, and how it was difficult to see the other side of the courtroom so happy... and trying to understand their relief and joy. I didn't discuss the details because I wasn't ready to talk about what I, too, had learned for the first time- which was much, much more than what you spoke of. It was heartbreaking to watch his son run out of the Courtroom, and his stepdaughter follow her older brother out in tears. It was just awful. That's all I spoke of.

 

[mssheila]

I haven't been following this case super-closely, but thought I'd weigh in (I am verified as an attorney here at WS, and did practice in Wisconsin, although am not currently practicing (I practiced mostly family law, although did some criminal law, mostly misdemeanors)).

1. In Wisconsin, judges are not bound by plea agreements between defendants and DAs. While judges often follow the agreements, they don't have to, and can impose anything up to the maximum sentence. Defendants are warned of this, by their attorney, by mandatory plea forms signed and submitted to the court at the time of a plea, and by the judge prior to accepting the plea.

In Wisconsin, any defendant has an automatic right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. When judges depart from a plea agreement, this is often brought up in the appeal, but there is a very high burden to overcome.

2. There is no longer parole in Wisconsin. In the early 2000's, Wisconsin enacted what is known as Truth in Sentencing legislation (known as TIS, there was both a TIS I and TIS II). For anybody sentenced for a crime committed after, I think, 2003, parole does not exist. The 45 years will be served in prison with no chance of any sort of reduction whatsoever (there are a few programs, such as boot camp, earned release, etc. to lessen a sentence, but a judge has to specify someone is eligible to participate, and the judge specified that he wasn't eligible). The 10 years "extended supervision" (which is kind of like parole/probation) will be served after the 45 years (any violation, even if it occurs after 9 years of ES, could result in the entire 10 years ES being served in prison).

You can look up the sentence at wcca.wicourts.gov, since the article linked wasn't the clearest.

Not weighing in on whether this was the right thing or not, just weighing in to explain some things.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this info!!! I've been trying to find it everywhere. I have a question for you. Is there any way that the public can read the pre-sentence investigation report? Either electronically or otherwise? Thanks in advance.

 

[RLynne]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this info!!! I've been trying to find it everywhere. I have a question for you. Is there any way that the public can read the pre-sentence investigation report? Either electronically or otherwise? Thanks in advance.

Court-ordered PSIs are confidential. In fact, if a defendant has an attorney, the defendant does not even get a copy of it (although he/she is allowed to review it). PSIs are governed by sec. 972.15(4). http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0972.pdf

 

[mytown2]

MsSheila I understand that this is an emotional case/thing for you. It is not
for me. I disagree that Hall should be held accountable the same or at all. I
cant even see where Humphrey`s friends/family feel that he should. This was not
a "conspiracy" event. Humphrey is the only one who took out a weapon and shot
someone. By saying that Hall was a co-conspirator would probably have to mean
premeditation in this shooting by Humphrey and Hall. I doubt even your friend
premeditated this shooting, or even meant for it to go this far. Looks and
sounds like he just kind snapped in that moment. Remember, Humphrey also took a
Plea Deal. All the hype over Use immunity with Hall is kinda just that. Hype. It
really served Hall no good if he was found lying about anything. Obviously he
must not have been cuz it sure sounds like enough had been done to try and make
it look otherwise. Hopefully you can make peace with the facts that you had to
hear and that your friend
will be in prison for what looks like the rest of his life. Sad situation for
all involved. But in the end I believe Justice was served.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Plea deals are not offered unless a crime has been committed.
If Hall had done nothing wrong, he would not have needed a plea deal.

 

[mytown2]

?? Humphrey made a Plea Deal, not Hall.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

?? Humphrey made a Plea Deal, not Hall.

Hall testified with immunity.
Would immunity be needed if there were no crimes he needed to be immune for?

Perhaps I used the wrong terms in my above post.

But, there was a deal struck on behalf of Hall.
What he did was criminal.
But they needed his testimony so they gave him immunity.

Or, did I misunderstand?