As we sit here after the jury in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud case has deliberated for five days without reaching a verdict, we have to consider the definition of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt". Let's look to the definition...
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.Think about that for a moment, in order to find a defendant guilty the prosecution must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the defendants guilt otherwise the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. How can the prosecution in this case expect the jury to find the defendants guilty in this case beyond a reasonable doubt when the governments main witnesses, the mortgage brokers Rene Rodriguez and Matt Gulla, have admitted to destroying evidence that may have been favorable to the defendants? Considering the shear volume of fraudulent mortgages Rodriguez and Gulla pulled off, by their own admission a number somewhere in the thousands, wouldn't evidence of their other frauds have been favorable to the defense theory that they were duped by the brokers and their associates as had thousands of others?
Considering the mortgage brokers destroyed evidence of these other frauds thereby making it impossible for the defendants to use the documentation involved to defend themselves, doesn't this in and of itself make it impossible for the prosecution to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt?
After what I've seen in this case ,God himself could come down and say their innocent, and I don't think that would make one bit of difference.This is for Joe and Dennis, I just want to let you know that all of your true friends and extended family knows what lies inside of you,loves you,prays for you and will be here for you through anything and everything.Just hang in there,soon this will all be over.I know the kind of person you are and as for the rest of them they can go *#*# themselves.
ReplyDeleteLove you and always praying for you and your family. "J"
If this is true about "reasonable doubt", why is our federal government not obligated to abide by the law?
ReplyDeletewhy is the procecutor allowed to change this law to his
advantage,just to win his case.
are the lives of all these men and their families in both trials not worth the truth and our laws.
Yes, the prosecution climbed into bed with two dirty brokers that made up a story they knew would draw their attention and lesson their sentence. There were atleast seven dirty brokers in that office according to the governments own witnesses, yet the lead agent decided to target the Leo's and the attorney even after he knew of the thousands of forgeries and destruction of evidence at the hands of the brokers. The government proved nothing other than their own negligent investigation.
ReplyDeleteIf being a federal prosecutor means you can say anything you want about anybody,make up proof,and try to send them to jail,with no fear of being held responsible, I have a neighbor I don't like. How can I get a job with the government?
ReplyDeleteseriously, this case is a crime to all honest people.
Have been following this case closely. The question I have is will the Miami office allow another trial? This one looks like it is Hung. Now that the government three years later is going after the lenders in the case do they continue after the consumers. The ironic story is in this case the lenders are the victims, in the case against the lenders the consumers are the victims.
ReplyDeleteWake up people!!