Rogel Aguilera-Mederos Rejected a Plea Deal. So He Got 110 Years in Prison.

[GURPS]

"My administration contemplated a significantly different outcome in this case and initiated plea negotiations but Mr. Aguilera-Mederos declined to consider anything other than a traffic ticket," she told me last week.

King's statement may not shock the conscience at first glance: Plea deals are a fixture of the U.S. criminal legal system. But her remarks hit at something deeper. By her own admission, Aguilera-Mederos was sentenced to die in prison not because the state felt that was the fair and just punishment, but because he insisted on exercising his constitutional right to trial.

Called the "trial penalty," prosecutors are known to pile on superfluous charges and threaten astronomical prison time unless the defendant agrees to plead guilty and save them the trouble of a trial. Should the defendant insist on his innocence, and should a jury disagree, he will likely receive a much more severe sentence for the same actions. The only difference is that he invoked his Sixth Amendment right.

King's office declined to comment on the precise parameters of the deal she would've offered. But as I wrote last week, whatever it was wouldn't have come remotely close to 110 years.

Rogel Aguilera-Mederos Rejected a Plea Deal. So He Got 110 Years in Prison.

Rogel Aguilera-Mederos' recent sentencing sparked significant backlash. The Colorado man received 110 years behind bars after his truck brakes failed,

reason.com

 

[SamSpade]

Skeptical. I'm going to have to read more elsewhere. It seems plainly evident that this man was in an accident through no fault of his own, and now is being imprisoned for life because he wanted a trial - and the point of the article is that the state is imprisoning a man for life - for an accident - to ensure that OTHER PEOPLE don't request trials.

If true it's outrageous, but I am always skeptical of such one-sided versions of a story.

 

[Kyle]

Skeptical. I'm going to have to read more elsewhere. It seems plainly evident that this man was in an accident through no fault of his own, and now is being imprisoned for life because he wanted a trial - and the point of the article is that the state is imprisoning a man for life - for an accident - to ensure that OTHER PEOPLE don't request trials.

After watching the violations and lengths a prosecutor will go in the Rittenhouse Trial, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

What were the charges? The jury obviously found them guilty of them, so hopefully they were guilty.

 

[GURPS]

and the point of the article is that the state is imprisoning a man for life - for an accident - to ensure that OTHER PEOPLE don't request trials.

The State alwasy gets pissy if you do not take their charity

 

[vraiblonde]

What a fat load of bullshit and I'm disappointed in you all who are gobbling it up.

That was a mandatory sentence. The judge didn't make it up out of thin air.

The man didn't get the sentence "because" he asked for a trial; he got that sentence because that's the freaking mandatory sentence that's on the books. Had he taken the plea deal he'd have gotten whatever, but he decided to try his luck and he lost. Did he really think a jury was going to find him not guilty?

This is why I can't stand Reason mag - they are one of the biggest rabble rousing liars out there.

 

[Monello]

Called the "trial penalty," prosecutors are known to pile on superfluous charges and threaten astronomical prison time unless the defendant agrees to plead guilty and save them the trouble of a trial. Should the defendant insist on his innocence, and should a jury disagree, he will likely receive a much more severe sentence for the same actions.

This is the part I have issue with. I'm sure many people that were innocent took the plea deal to avoid trial and a possible longer prison sentence.

 

[Rommey]

That was a mandatory sentence. The judge didn't make it up out of thin air.

I think that's the problem: the prosecution added so many additional charges that were likely meant to entice the defendant to take the plea deal. There were something like 27 charges for this incident, but probably should have been only 4 or 5 charges.

 

[Makavide]

I think that's the problem: the prosecution added so many additional charges that were likely meant to entice the defendant to take the plea deal. There were something like 27 charges for this incident, but probably should have been only 4 or 5 charges.

Aguilera-Mederos was charged with four counts of vehicular homicide, six counts of first-degree assault, 10 counts of attempted first-degree assault, four counts of careless driving causing death, two counts of vehicular assault and one count of reckless driving. Due to his brakes failing and getting into an accident.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think that's the problem: the prosecution added so many additional charges that were likely meant to entice the defendant to take the plea deal. There were something like 27 charges for this incident, but probably should have been only 4 or 5 charges.

Rommey, this man killed four people and injured at least a dozen more. He was speeding (down a mountain pass!) and passed at least one runaway truck ramp AND an exit that would have perhaps prevented this crash. One of his defense points was that the signs were all in English, which he does not speak or understand.

He thought he would be found not guilty of all charges, and ignored his lawyer's advice. He rolled the dice and lost. Tant pis. He can go back to Cuba if he doesn't like it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Let me ask you this:

If some non-English speaking immigrant (almost certainly here illegally) was speeding down a mountain in a semi, ignoring signs and warnings, and slammed into your son or daughter killing them in a fiery explosion, and then had the nads to think he'd just get a traffic ticket for it, would you still think his sentence was too light?

I'm thinking his employer needs to be locked up (or beheaded) as well for hiring drivers who don't speak or read English, and therefore shouldn't be driving.

 

[Hijinx]

I think the sentence is too long. ,but I also believe anyone who cannot speak English or understand signs in English has no business driving a Semi-truck in America. There are inspections that drivers are supposed to perform. He didn't.
I believe he should serve time. but I also believe the beaurocrats who passed the law to have him driving, and the people who owned the truck should be in jail with him.

 

[vraiblonde]

I also believe anyone who cannot speak English or understand signs in English has no business driving a Semi-truck in America.

Or even a car. How did this guy get a license to drive if he can't read traffic signs and warnings?

 

[Hijinx]

Or even a car. How did this guy get a license to drive if he can't read traffic signs and warnings?

You know the answer: We all do.
Motor Voter
Giving illegals license's because the left wanted it that way

Illegals do not belong in this country, much less licensed to drive on our roads.
English should be our official language in this country, and we should not bend over backwards for anyone who refuses to learn it.
Stop with the Press 1 for English, Stop printing our forms in other languages.

 

[Rommey]

Rommey, this man killed four people and injured at least a dozen more. He was speeding (down a mountain pass!) and passed at least one runaway truck ramp AND an exit that would have perhaps prevented this crash. One of his defense points was that the signs were all in English, which he does not speak or understand.

He thought he would be found not guilty of all charges, and ignored his lawyer's advice. He rolled the dice and lost. Tant pis. He can go back to Cuba if he doesn't like it.

I get that he rolled the dice like a lot of defendants. BUT do you think 27 charges for his actions were warranted (not legally supported or justified)? Do I think he screwed up and deserved to be charged/convicted? Absolutely. But one action should only be charged with the most egregious crimes, IMO. In addition to the four counts of vehicular homicide, he was also charged with six counts of first-degree assault, 10 counts of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, two counts of vehicular assault, one count of reckless driving and four counts of careless driving. Like many cases the prosecutor added all those other charges to entice a plea, but were the added charges really necessary? As I indicated before there is a legal argument for all the added charges but only if you couldn't prove the most egregious crime of vehicular homicide.

Much like Kim Potter being convicted of first degree manslaughter and second degree manslaughter. To me that's and either/or situation. One action, one crime.

 

[vraiblonde]

I get that he rolled the dice like a lot of defendants. BUT do you think 27 charges for his actions were warranted (not legally supported or justified)? Do I think he screwed up and deserved to be charged/convicted? Absolutely. But one action should only be charged with the most egregious crimes, IMO. In addition to the four counts of vehicular homicide, he was also charged with six counts of first-degree assault, 10 counts of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, two counts of vehicular assault, one count of reckless driving and four counts of careless driving. Like many cases the prosecutor added all those other charges to entice a plea, but were the added charges really necessary? As I indicated before there is a legal argument for all the added charges but only if you couldn't prove the most egregious crime of vehicular homicide.

Much like Kim Potter being convicted of first degree manslaughter and second degree manslaughter. To me that's and either/or situation. One action, one crime.

Yeah, I didn't really get that one either.

But you say the prosecutor added charges to entice a plea - and now we see that a plea deal would have been better for this guy. Four deaths and all those injuries would have gotten him a life sentence under mandatory sentencing. So is the prosecutor really a bad guy for trying to get this person to make a deal for a lighter sentence?

I'm seeing this the exact opposite of you. It appears they were all trying to get this dumbshit to be sensible and he insisted on being the dumbshit he is, thinking a jury would give him a traffic ticket for killing four people.

 

[GURPS]

Four deaths and all those injuries would have gotten him a life sentence under mandatory sentencing.

bust a cap in someones ass, you are out sooner

 

[vraiblonde]

bust a cap in someones ass, you are out sooner

Depends on where you are and what color you are. If you're a black or brown guy gunning people down in San Francisco they let you off with probation and time served.

 

[Hijinx]

I get that he rolled the dice like a lot of defendants. BUT do you think 27 charges for his actions were warranted (not legally supported or justified)? Do I think he screwed up and deserved to be charged/convicted? Absolutely. But one action should only be charged with the most egregious crimes, IMO. In addition to the four counts of vehicular homicide, he was also charged with six counts of first-degree assault, 10 counts of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, two counts of vehicular assault, one count of reckless driving and four counts of careless driving. Like many cases the prosecutor added all those other charges to entice a plea, but were the added charges really necessary? As I indicated before there is a legal argument for all the added charges but only if you couldn't prove the most egregious crime of vehicular homicide.

Much like Kim Potter being convicted of first degree manslaughter and second degree manslaughter. To me that's and either/or situation. One action, one crime.

It's become a policy to charge people with anything they can think of hoping to get a conviction on one of them. However a jury ---if they are going to find someone guilty should pick one and go for it.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

In MD you can kill someone while dealing drugs and you will be out in 15 years or less.

He understood the signs, that was a bullshit excuse the defense made up. Like any 23 year old he thought he was master of the motor vehicle.

Then again maybe we need a few life sentences for the bullshit I see pulled on RT235 when it causes a fatality, might make better drivers.