Crime | Michael Sandy | New York | News

Defendant's Confession Challenged in Michael Sandy Trial

While the main focus of the Michael Sandy case has been on Anthony Fortunato for the past week, attention has now turned to defendant John Fox, and prosecutors believe that Fox could be convicted of murder as a hate crime based on his videotaped confession alone.

FoxFox's lawyer John Patten is trying to make the argument that Fox's confession was coerced: "They were putting the heat on this kid. This young man has been broken .... There was nothing voluntary about that statement."

Jurors are expected to get the case this morning, according to the New York Daily News, and could throw out the confession if they believe Patten's argument to be valid.

Fox's father, incidentally, was a high-ranking battalion chief in the New York Fire Department who was honored as a hero for saving a fellow rescue worker in the dangerous smoking pit at the bombed World Trade Center parking garage in 1993.

Closing arguments in Fortunato's case are expected this afternoon.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Uuummm...why is there a Rush Limbaugh ad on here?

    Posted by: Sam | Oct 4, 2007 11:29:02 AM


  2. Juries don't "throw out confessions," juries decide the facts of the case. The jurors when deciding what weight to give the defendant's confession can decide to discount it as coerced or unreliable, but the phrase "throw out a confession" is usually used when a judge deems a confession to be inadmissable because he rules that it has been obtained in contravention of constitutional protections. Juries don't get to make decisions of law such as this. (Just a nitpicky little semantic point I felt like I needed to make...)

    Posted by: Meeg | Oct 4, 2007 11:41:44 AM


  3. Juries don't "throw out confessions," juries decide the facts of the case. The jurors when deciding what weight to give the defendant's confession can decide to discount it as coerced or unreliable, but the phrase "throw out a confession" is usually used when a judge deems a confession to be inadmissable because he rules that it has been obtained in contravention of constitutional protections. Juries don't get to make decisions of law such as this. (Just a nitpicky little semantic point I felt like I needed to make...)

    Posted by: Meeg | Oct 4, 2007 11:42:46 AM


  4. That's hardly nitpicky, Meeg! With that in mind and the spin removed, the only noteworthy information is that this little skinbagged excuse for human flesh is the product of a high-ranking batallion officer involved in the rescue operations of WTC '93. I wonder how high the pressure at home for the shit-filled asshat was, or if he really just succumbed to peer pressure...not that it makes any goddamned difference.

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Oct 4, 2007 12:02:27 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «How SNL's "I Ran" Was Put Together« «