Jedzz wrote:winforlose wrote:Jedzz wrote:Meanwhile the injury Lawyer and his wife in St. Louis pled not guilty to felony charges for aiming assault rifle and automatic pistols at protestors. Beyond pleading not guilty, their trial was put on hold when their lawyer, or Donald Trump depending on what you know, got the prosecutor dismissed from the trial. A new semi retired 73 year old senior judge was appointed the role as special prosecutor in January who said this might be a nice way to spend his next year or so. It will be interesting to see if this couple skates free with fines and hefty legal fees, or loses their own license to practice law in the near future. The injury lawyer had said he and his wife are facing charges that could get them 4 years in jail and none of the protestors face any charges. But I think everyone pretty much assumes this couple isn't spending a day in jail. Could the Missouri Bar take his license for 12 months or would that be out of bounds?
That is a very tough question for any lawyer not living in Missouri. In Minnesota the licensing board is more concerned with issues of truthfulness then issues of threats of force. For example, a sure fire way to lose your license either by suspension or permanent disqualification is to steal from a trust or a commit a serious financial fraud. I remember our ethics professor warning us if we ever got arrested for anything to immediately write to the licensing board and tell them all the relevant details ASAP. That said, I have never been arrested (before or after getting my license,) so all my knowledge is hypothetical. Moreover, we were taught that every state has different rules and priorities. I doubt they face professional consequences until the legal process plays out unless they are accused of lying to the court. If that happens either in the pleadings or any proceedings then the licensing board would likely step in.
interesting local info for sure thank you. I get that everyone has a right to plead not guilty, but does that speak to truthfullness at all when they are on video and photos aiming the rifle and pistol at these people and yelling at them, wife with finger on the trigger. The grand jury also added a new charge of manipulating evidence (obviously I don't know the real terms) as it sounds like they managed to adjust the pistol so that it is no longer automatic or something. Not sure how they would have known it was in the first place unless she fired it. But again, would a Bar see this as two people operating within their rights to defend themselves in court by all means necessary to them under the rule of law, or see them as being untruthful in not pleading guilty and throwing themselves at the feet of the court since they are obviously right there aiming assault weapons at people from their front yard and driveway and that's obviously breaking a federal law. Beasley obviously plead guilty to an arranged plea deal. These two are choosing to fight it even though the law against what they did simply is what it is and they clearly did what they did. Whether I agree with this stupid law or not or think people should be able to protect their property doesn't matter. But if we can condemn a basketball player and suggest he should be taken out of his career for any period of time and suffer large financial losses for it, I am wondering why we shouldn't assume this couple loses their career for a period of time at least. I would hope a legal Bar sets a higher "bar" then a sports league would. Not that I have anything against these people. It's just an interesting similar example to me.
So I am going to add two disclaimers to this for the sake of accuracy and professional responsibility.
1. I know literally nothing of Missouri law. Laws can be somewhat similar if they are based on the model rules, but more likely than not are radically different between states.
2. I am not up to date on the facts of this case beyond what I saw on the news. Without the facts I can only speak in very broad terms and am likely to miss very important nuance.
The first thing to understand is that a not guilty plea can be made without disputing you committed the act. For example, you can argue you are not guilty of assault or homicide because it was self defense. You can argue that while you committed a lesser crime you are not guilty under the elements of the charged crime. You can argue that you are not guilty because the law itself is unconstitutional, and this is not a comprehensive list.
Additionally, the facts can be misconstrued based on limited perspective. An easy example is the white kid who sued for defamation when the news made it look like he was provoking an adult male (I believe he was Native American but I don’t remember the details,) but in reality he was the one being targeted. A not guilty plea triggers the right to discovery which may in fact shed light on the situation. For example had this couple been victimized recently in some way which made them more sensitive. Do they have mental health issues, ect...
All of this is to suggest that it is highly unlikely anyone pursues a legal license on the basis of the pleading.
