So far, its not our legal systems but the slimy pieces of miserable shits also known as the Torsells and their i love you lawyer.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
What were the BA levels of the victims? I can't see how that would even matter when you take into consideration Torsell's ridiculous levels, as well as greater responsibility of operating a vehicle. Hence, assuming that there is no way the victims were even close to Torsell's BA levels, why the hell are they even comparing it to the Applegate case? It's apples to oranges. Unless they can prove that the victims, without a shadow of a doubt, jumped out in front of the car (any accident reconstruction specialist can do this) suddenly, then it should be cut and dried that Torsell should be in prison. Amazing how screwed up our legal system is to be dragging out this case over nonsensical BS. :|Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: TehMac
So what's happening? Is that slimy little shit still trying to weevil his bitchy ass out of it?
I'm half tempted to fly to wherever that little asshat lives and beat the shit out of him.
Looks like his lawyer is claiming the victims were intoxicated and totally to blame for the accident. Also, that the victim who is 1/2 alive, Aaron Stidd, being in the courtroom swayed the jurors.
asshat. :|
He's doing his job for the Torcell family though. They must have the $$$$$$ to pay him.
Originally posted by: Ryan
Just bumping this as a sober reminder - my friends father was just killed over the weekend by a drunk driver :brokenheart:
Originally posted by: Ryan
Just bumping this as a sober reminder - my friends father was just killed over the weekend by a drunk driver :brokenheart:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/a...nied_second_trial.aspxPosted on March 5, 2008 12:59 AM
Torsell denied second trial
Anthony Torsell?s attorney says he will appeal the case to a higher court.
Though a judge denied his appeal for a new trial, the attorney for a man sentenced to nearly six years for striking two pedestrians while driving drunk said the case is not over.
About eight months after he presided over student Anthony Torsell's trial, Centre County Judge Thomas Kistler denied Torsell, 21, an appeal Monday, dismissing his attorney's argument that the victim's presence biased the jury.
"I expected it," said Joseph Amendola, Torsell's attorney. "Judges don't normally reverse themselves."
Torsell, then 20, was convicted of striking visitor Richard Smith, 21, and student Aaron Stidd, then 20, at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2006, as they crossed the intersection at Atherton Street at Beaver Avenue. Smith died at Mount Nittany Medical Center the night of the accident, and Stidd was critically injured.
Among other things, Amendola argued that the courtroom presence of Stidd, wheelchair-bound and aided by medical staff, and a doctor's testimony about his "catastrophic injuries" were enough to bias the jury.
J. Stidd, Aaron's father, disagrees.
"The points of the appeal were far-fetched and desperate attempts to make something out of nothing," J. Stidd said. "The judge ruled correctly the first time and correctly upon appeal."
Amendola said he has 30 days to file an appeal to the state Superior Court, and Torsell will get a chance for re-trial. The entire process, Amendola said, could take as long as a year.
During the Sept. 26 trial, Amendola objected to Stidd's presence, likening his presence to that of a dead body, a decision he said he received "unbelievable heat" for in the following weeks.
Amendola also argued that Stidd, 22, was within 10 feet of the jurors as they left the courtroom for a lunch break; however, Kistler said this "did not cause undue prejudice."
"There is no evidence, however, that any jurors had any contact or discussion with Mr. Stidd or his family," Kistler wrote in his opinion.
Amendola disagreed.
"Gee whiz, how could you not be impacted by that?" he asked. "I was impacted by it, and I represent Anthony."
Amendola said the issue he intends to bring to the Superior court is that Stidd's right to be in the courtroom interfered with Torsell's right to a fair and impartial trial.
J. Stidd said he sees this appeal as "throwing good money away."
"I anticipate they will have very little success based on the weakness of their points," he said. "They could have buried Rick Smith over and over and paid for Aaron's van conversion with the amount they've spent on defense."
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
Originally posted by: rasczak
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
the money.
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
Originally posted by: Beev
Originally posted by: rasczak
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
the money.
I consider myself a pretty big asshole, and I wouldn't even consider trying to represent someone who without a doubt had committed such a terrible crime. Not on an average lawyers salary anyway.
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
Originally posted by: hanoverphist
Originally posted by: Beev
Originally posted by: rasczak
Originally posted by: Beev
God damn... How the freaking HELL do lawyers live with themselves?
the money.
I consider myself a pretty big asshole, and I wouldn't even consider trying to represent someone who without a doubt had committed such a terrible crime. Not on an average lawyers salary anyway.
if there was no defense, everyone would be prosecuted without a chance. people (even glaringly obvious crimes) need to have that defense to make sure they are the right party to prosecute. nothing about being a heartless lawyer in there, that comes from practice and lack of ethics to work the system to get obvious criminals off on technicalities.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/a...ns_original_verdi.aspxPosted on April 2, 2008 12:57 AM
Judge maintains original verdict unbiased
A Centre County judge said Aaron Stidd?s presence did not skew the decision in Anthony Torsell?s trial.
Despite additional witness testimony implying a biased trial for a man convicted of vehicular homicide, a Centre County judge ruled that he still does not believe the verdict was prejudiced.
Former student Anthony Torsell, then 20, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and striking visitor Richard Smith, 21, and student Aaron Stidd, then 20, at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2006, as they crossed the intersection of Atherton Street and Beaver Avenue.
Smith was pronounced dead at Mount Nittany Medical Center the night of the accident, and Stidd was critically injured.
After being convicted of vehicular homicide and aggravated assault while driving under the influence in September, Torsell was denied a new trial and continues to serve his nearly six-year prison sentence.
Last Friday, Centre County Judge Thomas Kistler held a 15-minute hearing at which Torsell's lawyer, Joseph Amendola, supplemented the post-sentence motion hearing record. Amendola called witness Keith McClellan to testify and support Amendola's claim that Stidd's wheelchair-bound condition and contact with the jurors during the trial skewed the jury's decision.
"It was hard for all of us to come to grips with Aaron's conditions," Amendola said. "He's not ever going to get any better, and the jury would be hard pressed to set that aside and give Anthony Torsell a fair trial."
Kistler wrote in an opinion filed Monday that the additional testimony of McClellan, the "inadvertent contact between jurors" and Stidd's physical condition in the courtroom, while "accurate," do not "heighten any concerns regarding prejudice to the defendant."
Amendola is filing an appeal to the case in the Pennsylvania Superior Court because he said there is no precedent to support Kistler's decision.
"It's kind of a novel issue. No one can find any cases that speak to that issue," Amendola said. "When does the defendant's right to an impartial trial trump a victim's right to be in court?"
If the superior court finds errors in the case, it would return to Centre County Courthouse for a re-trial, Amendola said.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/a...news_in_brief_108.aspxPosted on April 21, 2008 12:58 AM
Torsell's complaint meets reluctance
On Wednesday, convicted drunken driver Anthony Torsell, 22, filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal, which stated the court erred in allowing victim Aaron Stidd's presence at the trial and in allowing "unnecessary, inflammatory and unduly prejudicial" medical testimony. It further stated that the court erred in the misrepresentation of information about another case and in not giving enough consideration to mitigating factors in sentencing.
Torsell was convicted in September of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence and aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence. He was sentenced in November to serve five years and eight months to 11 years and four months in prison.
Centre County Judge Thomas Kistler returned an opinion on Friday in response to the statement, stating that the court found that it has already addressed those issues.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
So should this be the end of it? How many more pathetic appeals can his lawyer come up with?
And what the hell, one of the victims isn't allowed to attend the trial of the one who injured him? What next, if a woman is raped, will she not be allowed to take the stand because her presence in court could negatively influence the jury?Originally posted by: Hyperlite
I think his obviously debilitated state should influence the jury.