MD - Andrew F. Wilkinson, 52, state circuit court judge, shot and killed in home driveway, Pedro Argote, 49, suspect - Hagerstown, 19 Oct 2023

NOW: A tactical team is searching this building in Williamsport, Md at what appears to be a former tannery, as authorities attempt to find Pedro Argote, suspected of killing Judge Andrew Wilkinson Thursday night. A 4:30 p.m. press conference has been rescheduled for 5 p.m.


 
In a news release issued late Friday, the Marshals Service said Argote has ties to multiple areas outside of Maryland, including Brooklyn and Long Island, New York; Tampa and Clearwater, Florida; Columbus, Indiana; and unknown cities in North Carolina.

Albert said Argote is considered “armed and dangerous.”

Wilkinson had presided over a divorce proceeding involving Argote earlier Thursday, but Argote was not present at the hearing, Albert said. The judge gave custody of Argote’s children to his wife at the hearing, and that was the motive for the killing, the sheriff said. The judge had also ordered Argote to have no contact with the children and pay $1,120 a month in child support.
 
The petition for a protection order, filed June 12, 2022 in Washington County District Court, also accused Pedro Argote, 49, of harassment via text messages, constant monitoring through security cameras and threats to take custody of their children, ages 12, 11, 5, and 3, over false claims of neglect.

In the petition, the ex-wife wrote there was no longer physical violence against the 11-year-old because during the most recent episode, she got in between the two and said that for him “to get to her he needed to hit me or kill me,” the petition says, adding that he tried to push her away.
 
Somehow...broader laws to keep the identity of judges who have to sign off on volatile cases, should be kept anonymous.
Though I do sympathize with the sentiments, I dont think such a law would pass the constitutionality test due to the following amendments.

- The sixth amendment guarantees a public trial. One can make a pretty good argument that a trial presided over by a "masked" judge is not truly "public".

- The sixth amendment also allows one to face their accusers. One could extrapolate that this concept also applies to the ability to "face one's judge" as well.

- The 5th amendment guarantees "Due Process". One could argue that a "masked" judge prevents the defendant from examining whether he or she is biased and asking for a new judge (very rarely granted- but constitutional law is probably loaded with questions that are largely hypothetical). Thus, the defendant is denied their due process.
 
Though I do sympathize with the sentiments, I dont think such a law would pass the constitutionality test due to the following amendments.

- The sixth amendment guarantees a public trial. One can make a pretty good argument that a trial presided over by a "masked" judge is not truly "public".

- The sixth amendment also allows one to face their accusers. One could extrapolate that this concept also applies to the ability to "face one's judge" as well.

- The 5th amendment guarantees "Due Process". One could argue that a "masked" judge prevents the defendant from examining whether he or she is biased and asking for a new judge (very rarely granted- but constitutional law is probably loaded with questions that are largely hypothetical). Thus, the defendant is denied their due process.
It’s way too easy to look people up though. There’s a reason some DV victims don’t register to vote.
 
Though I do sympathize with the sentiments, I dont think such a law would pass the constitutionality test due to the following amendments.

- The sixth amendment guarantees a public trial. One can make a pretty good argument that a trial presided over by a "masked" judge is not truly "public".

- The sixth amendment also allows one to face their accusers. One could extrapolate that this concept also applies to the ability to "face one's judge" as well.

- The 5th amendment guarantees "Due Process". One could argue that a "masked" judge prevents the defendant from examining whether he or she is biased and asking for a new judge (very rarely granted- but constitutional law is probably loaded with questions that are largely hypothetical). Thus, the defendant is denied their due process.

I appreciate your input.... I knew there were specifics that I had not studied yet... I do want to try to do some research though... It just seems that there could be some approaches that might be breaking the constitutional tests, that could help somewhat....
 
The US Marshals Service has announced a $10K reward for info leading to the whereabouts of Pedro Argote. Argote is accused of shooting and killing a #Maryland Circuit Court Judge @USMarshalsHQ


1697981809276.png
 

a2540cf0b3c64fe199a35b96d18b3eae_md.png


7371e1687aba4ccfb306ca31bc7beb09_md.png


HAGERSTOWN, Md. (TCD) -- Law enforcement officials are searching for a man they allege shot and killed a circuit court judge the same day he awarded custody of the couple’s four minor children to the suspect’s estranged wife.
 
Though I do sympathize with the sentiments, I dont think such a law would pass the constitutionality test due to the following amendments.

- The sixth amendment guarantees a public trial. One can make a pretty good argument that a trial presided over by a "masked" judge is not truly "public".

- The sixth amendment also allows one to face their accusers. One could extrapolate that this concept also applies to the ability to "face one's judge" as well.

- The 5th amendment guarantees "Due Process". One could argue that a "masked" judge prevents the defendant from examining whether he or she is biased and asking for a new judge (very rarely granted- but constitutional law is probably loaded with questions that are largely hypothetical). Thus, the defendant is denied their due process.
I under stood the OP to mean that personal details such as home address be kept out of public records, not that the judge's identity should be concealed at trial.
 
I like how they refer to the relationship as “contentious” - with no allegations made about the wife at all - /s. It wasn’t contentious, he was extremely controlling and abusive.
 
Last edited:

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
665
Total visitors
828

Forum statistics

Threads
625,973
Messages
18,516,834
Members
240,909
Latest member
FinnTheClues
Back
Top