GUILTY GA - Antonio Santiago, 13 mos, Brunswick, 21 March 2013 - #2

[jjenny]

Cappucino, that's a good point about PDs not making that much. And he was probably hoping that maybe DE's mom & aunt were credible and there was a chance it would all come down to Sherry's word vs. the perps. And hopefully with the new revelations of evidence and other crime(s) that he is encouraging his client to take a plea. LWOP would be nice, but I would take 120 years before possibility of parole. (That was sarasm, btw.)

Georgia does still have the death penalty, but I really don't see it being given to a 17 year old regardless of how much he might deserve it.

Was he born yesterday? A defense lawyer should at least get the discovery first before making claims about his client being 100-% not guilty.

 

[Hickory Born]

Cappucino, that's a good point about PDs not making that much. And he was probably hoping that maybe DE's mom & aunt were credible and there was a chance it would all come down to Sherry's word vs. the perps. And hopefully with the new revelations of evidence and other crime(s) that he is encouraging his client to take a plea. LWOP would be nice, but I would take 120 years before possibility of parole. (That was sarasm, btw.)

Georgia does still have the death penalty, but I really don't see it being given to a 17 year old regardless of how much he might deserve it.

In the State of Georgia one must be 18 years old at the time of the crime to receive the Death Penalty.

 

[jjenny]

No where in America can ANY state sentence a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of their crime to death. No matter if they are tried as an adult and the state has the death penalty.

Roper v Simmons






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, he is not eligible for the death penalty-unfortunately, IMO.

 

[Cappuccino]

Oh, I get what you're saying. I really do. I do.

Its just he had absolutely no reason to go "on the record" in front of the media and make that 1000 percent claim. No reason to. And he obviously said that without having any discovery on this case at all.

As for PD's not making a whole lot - well, in this economy what they make is still quite a cut above what the regular joe does. Plus, being the PD's office opens them up to the political arena in that, maybe, with some backing, they will be able to run for judge (or other political offices) down the road.

Nope, sorry. This guy had no reason to make that nonsensical claim of 1000 percent to the media. None. He was bloviating and look where it got him. He should have had "no comment" until he at least got the initial discovery and this grand jury report.





JMHO

Yes, he should have. He presumably was gullible enough to believe his client's claim to be an innocent little lamb who was being railroaded. I don't know anything about the lawyer, mabye he's inexperienced, maybe he's just not very smart. Whichever the case, I would guess he's regretting that statement now.

 

[tlcya]

I doubt he does. This is going to be an unpopular viewpoint, but I feel a bit sorry for the defense attorney. Bear in mind that he wasn't there when the crime took place, so when his client swears blind that he's an innocent little lamb and tells him a and bull story, unlike the rest of us he is constitutionally barred from calling BS. He is legally bound to believe his client and put up the best defense possible under the assumption that his client is telling the truth.

That's the nature of an adversarial justice system, and IMO this PD was just trying to do his job. Its not his fault his client turned out to be a lying sociopath with a family of lying sociopaths on top of all that. He's probably sitting somewhere with his head in his hands now, nursing a stiff drink.

I know. Trust me. I do. I am a legal assistant who works in civil litigation, probate areas in addition to following criminal cases for some years now, so I am not unschooled in the ways of the justice system or attorneys oaths of office.

While the logical side of my brain knows that Mr. Gough, as a PD, is bound by his oath to present the most vigorous defense of his client as is possible, my heart says he went beyond that with the statement I quoted above.

He is not assigned to defend the Elkins family. He is assigned to vigorously defend DeMarquise Elkins.

A simple response to the question from the reporter such as "I do not have enough information to feel comfortable commenting on that" would have sufficed and would have gone miles in preserving my respect for him, while not compromising his client.

MOO

 

[JeannaT]

I'm just going to broach this. I was hoping someone else would and I could just "thanks" their post.

Is something wrong with DE? He doesn't look right. He seems tiny, and his facial features don't look normal to me. I wonder if he has been diagnosed with some kind of developmental genetic syndrome.

 

[noZme]

Unfortunately, these "ladies" will be out of prison before long. They will continue to "live" as they have lived till now, maybe bring a few more children into the world.

Very little chance that they will ever have a job, parent their offspring, or bring anything positive into this world.

Exactly! And working people/taxpayers are paying for it.

A couple other points in response to previous posts. The baby's mom would have been asked about insurance or payment for their services by the funeral home. That is why it was foremost in her mind & she brought it up to the daughter who in turn blabbed it to the media for her own 15 minutes of fame.

Also, the culture is not only a problem in inner cities. It is prevalent in small towns too.

 

[NinjaPoof]

And Antonio's mom's psychiatric records are pertinent to all this HOW??? :furious:

<snipped>

I need someone to hold MY hair, now!

I got chew boo!!!

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I've been reading up on Mr. Goughs trial record. I found a statement from him regarding his 2008 campaign for Solicitor.

Prior to his campaign, he had worked as a prosecutor and then went into private practice.

Out of the cases that went to trial, he claims to have lost 1 case in 15 years as a defense attorney. This conviction was later overturned and dismissed. This does not include plea agreements.

If this is true, that is an impressive record. moo

I'll try to find the statement and link it.

He did not win the election btw.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Minette]

Guys, I live in Georgia and I know that the USSC won't permit a minor to receive the death penalty even though we still have it in this state! I really don't think he ever needs to be free in society again, but what can we do if he can't get the DP or LWOP because he is a minor??? That's why I said sarcastically that I wish he could get 120 years before possibility of parole. He won't, he can't, but I can wish, right??? As for the other alleged perp, well, let's hope they figure out how to keep him beyond age 21.

 

[Minette]

I got chew boo!!!

Gurrrrrrrrlll, thanks!

(Folks, I'm sorry, I don't mean to seem flippant, I'm just a 'laugh instead of cry' kind of person, you know?)

 

[Wise Old Owl]

So he's already in the political arena. Ran for Solicitor. And his record doesn't count plea deals. That's exactly what this is going to come down to. I said that way back <--------------------- there. DE will get LWOP. This won't go to trial. Gough's record will stay in tact and he will continue his journey up the ladder. 1000 percent.




JMHO

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Lol, wise old owl, I like your thinking on this.

I'm not trying to build this guy up, but he's kind of a big deal. Not a public defender because he scored low on his bar exam.

He's THE Public Defender for 5 counties with 3 offices. He also oversees a large group of asst. public defenders that are probably doing the legwork while he gets in front of the camera. jmo



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cappuccino]

So he's already in the political arena. Ran for Solicitor. And his record doesn't count plea deals. That's exactly what this is going to come down to. I said that way back <--------------------- there. DE will get LWOP. This won't go to trial. Gough's record will stay in tact and he will continue his journey up the ladder. 1000 percent.




JMHO

Didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that LWOP for juveniles was unconstitutional?

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Guys, I live in Georgia and I know that the USSC won't permit a minor to receive the death penalty even though we still have it in this state! I really don't think he ever needs to be free in society again, but what can we do if he can't get the DP or LWOP because he is a minor??? That's why I said sarcastically that I wish he could get 120 years before possibility of parole. He won't, he can't, but I can wish, right??? As for the other alleged perp, well, let's hope they figure out how to keep him beyond age 21.

Hi Minette,
What could he get? Are you familiar with the sentencing guidelines for this type of crime?

Do you have habitual offender laws? I'm in Texas and a crime can be enhanced if someone is a repeat offender.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that LWOP for juveniles was unconstitutional?

That's only if they did NOT commit homicide.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vlpate]

How do we know the daughter is even credible? Anyone can say anything. maybe she hates her Mother, has her own agenda. Why be "baffled?" The Babykilling thugs and their enabling -ette relatives seem to have given the police all they need to solve this horrific crime.

And even if the Mother is not "harriet"....that in NO WAY excuses, or prettys-up or makes anything HUMAN out of these murderous Thugs. There is no way that dirtying up the Mother helps these Two...they shot a BABY in a stroller!

The daughter recorded her mother's phone call, so I heard SM ask about the insurance.

Sorry, the end of the above quote makes no sense to me, who is making excuses for the person that shot this baby? <modsnip>

 

[tlcya]

Oh, I get what you're saying. I really do. I do.

Its just he had absolutely no reason to go "on the record" in front of the media and make that 1000 percent claim. No reason to. And he obviously said that without having any discovery on this case at all.

As for PD's not making a whole lot - well, in this economy what they make is still quite a cut above what the regular joe does. Plus, being the PD's office opens them up to the political arena in that, maybe, with some backing, they will be able to run for judge (or other political offices) down the road.

Nope, sorry. This guy had no reason to make that nonsensical claim of 1000 percent to the media. None. He was bloviating and look where it got him. He should have had "no comment" until he at least got the initial discovery and this grand jury report.


JMHO

The cynic in me says that response would not have received nearly the face time or as widespread coverage as his little 1000% soundbite did.

Those with aspirations and ambitions need to make sure the public knows their name and their face by placing it front and center as often as possible.

JMOHO

Oh, did I forget to mention the attorney I work for also holds a public office?

 

[Cappuccino]

The cynic in me says that response would not have received nearly the face time or as widespread coverage as his little 1000% soundbite did.

Those with aspirations and ambitions need to make sure the public knows their name and their face by placing it front and center as often as possible.

JMOHO

Oh, did I forget to mention the attorney I work for also holds a public office?

But he's now got egg all over his face, and his credibility is shot to bits. Not too clever of him.

Not that I care about his political ambitions, but I do worry when a public defender does something like that because if his next client is actually innocent and being railroaded, who's going to believe him?

 

[JeannaT]

The daughter recorded her mother's phone call, so I heard SM ask about the insurance.

Sorry, the end of the above quote makes no sense to me, who is making excuses for the person that shot this baby? <modsnip> IMO

Hmm. I think the question is, are the sons different? Was little Antonio in his stroller, different from DE who shot him in the face?

That's what this crime is about, IMHO, and everyone else is peripheral. DE shot this darling little baby in the face with ZERO provocation. Everything else is kind of extraneous information.