WHA-AT?!?

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

WHA-AT?!?

This makes no sense at all!

DA To Retry Guldi On Felony Larceny And Insurance Fraud Charges

"The decision to re-try the now-disbarred attorney was somewhat unexpected, as Mr. Guldi had already served more than six years of a four-to-12-year sentence at an upstate prison prior to being released on his own recognizance this July when a state appellate court threw out his conviction on a technicality."

Yeah, what the 27East report said!

  1. George has already served over 50% of the maximum sentence imposed by the court.
  2. This comes more than three years after his first unsuccessful parole hearing.
  3. OtBB noted in that first report of George's parole denial, that...
    "'Remorse?' Neither the word nor an equivalency are to be found anywhere in George's lexicon."
    ...and the smart money says that six plus years in the slams have done nothing to recondition his attitude.

    Why should it? The man had always insisted that his convictions were wrong, and "technicality" or not, the NYS Appellate Division, Second Department agreed with him, and a higher court concurred.
  4. What is to be gained by a retrial, further incar­cer­a­tion? Doesn't seem like a good utilization of public resources.

No matter what happens from here on, George Guldi will, with some justification, feel vindicated and his legal ac­cumen validated, though it cost him most of his worth and nearly eight years out of his life.

Not that I feel sorry for him... he did it to himself.

Comments

1. Susan said...

I agree with you that it is a waste of resources.

I believe the rationale is that he is no longer considered a felon.

You must remember that there were multiple Guilty pleas to other charges prior to his 2011 trials, which puts him in the class of Prohibited Person no matter what the appellate process determines.

Upon information and belief, George's only recourse now is to apply for a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities.
Dean

2. Paramarine said...

I also agree that a re-trial would be a waste of resources at this point.

However, with regard to the Opinion of the Appellate Division Court, the verdict was not reversed, but remanded back to the Trial Court for a new trial.

The term "technicality" often gets thrown around lazily. It's vague, and its use implies that the Court is nit-picking over something minor. That's not to say it's intentionally used that way, it's probably more for convenience by reporters that don't have the time, opportunity, or even available page space to get a proper understanding and then explain it. The truth is, more often than not, that "technicality" means a significant error has occurred.

A reading of the Court's Opinion shows that they got it right.

I never understood how the Trial Judge would make an error of that magnitude, nor how it took the appellate so long to rule on it.

My understanding is that while the number of peremptory Challenges allowed during voir dire is finite, the number of for-cause challenges are not, and this seemed rather obvious an error by Judge Doyle. (Maybe George had already pissed the judge off mightily at that point!)
– Dean

Name
URL
Email
Email address is not published
Remember Me
Comments

CAPTCHA Reload
Write the characters in the image above