Defending Misty on Jan 10, 2011 in Putnam County

[bessie]

Originally Posted by 1Chump

IMO, three incidents, Misty never touched the pills and/or money. With Tommy, Tommy handled everything. Misty left with Tommy. By Misty leaving with Tommy, they could make the case that she was an accessory despite not touching the pills and/or money.

However, with both Donna and the "unidentified white female" the UC brought Misty into the deal by paying her money for facilitating the deal. Until Misty was paid that money, Misty did not have contact with either the pills or the money. Therefore the cases against Misty would be very weak. They had the calls but hard to make a case that she was dealing when she did not make any money or even leave with the money. The deal with the UWF, Misty met Ron and left with him. Although Ron was not involved in that particular transaction, he did discuss a future deal with the UC.

IMO, Ron found out that with the Donna deal, Misty received extra money for brokering the deal. Misty probably hide it from Ron because she told the UC in her next call that the money was stolen. The next time Misty was helping a friend and received a "brokering fee" Ron just happened to met her. IMO, to make sure she did not hide her brokering fee.

All the other deals both Ron and/or Misty had contact with the pills and/or money. But Ron was always the last one with the money.

IMO, yes Misty would have eventually got busted for possession and/or under the influence. I don't think Misty would have got busted for dealing.

Hi 1chump. Glad you rang in here. I'll reply to more later when i get home. For now I want to point out it's my understanding that under Florida's conspiracy laws Misty would have been guilty of trafficking even if she had not beem physically present during the transactions.

References to come.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lanie]

Originally Posted by Baznme

This post was precious. It made me laugh (although the case is not funny by any means) and realize just how far out all of this has taken us to try to come up with a solution as to what happened to Haleigh. I'm back on planet earth now. Lanie, with all of that said, what's your take on what happened to her since that is the reason we are all here to begin with?

BBM

I believe Misty was the caretaker for the children that day.

I do not believe Haleigh was kidnapped mere feet away from Misty and Misty slept through it.

I absolutely do not believe Ronald Cummings possesses ANYTHING to inspire ANYONE other than maybe his mother and grandmother to be involved in a conspiracy to cover him in the death of his daughter, especially LE.

These 3 things are the foundation of my theory.

[Lanie]

Originally Posted by dodie20

It is ridiculous to assume that snitches are following dealers around, but I'm not buying Ron having LE in his back pocket either. This was obviously, IMO, a detailed plan to get both Ron & Misty. I don't think 1 just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. & the same goes for the rest of them. Until I hear differently, from a reliable source, I'll believe they were all targeted. I think it's pointless to compare Ron to Misty...especially if the effort is being made to make one look like a worse person. What does it matter? They're both in prison for trafficking drugs. I also don't believe DCF was doing their jobs, in this case. If they had been as concerned with getting these kids away from guns & drugs, & their teenaged 'stepmom' figure, as they were with them having their own rooms, Haleigh would be alive.

BBM

I think it's pointless and a little strange to compare them where if one is in the wrong, the other is somehow automatically either guiltless or coerced.

For me to say Misty was the 'ringleader' in the drug sting doesn't make Ron her mindless puppet zombie. IMO, Misty and Ron are just as guilty of dealing drugs, it just happens Misty agreed to with an UC while Ron agreed to with Misty. IMO, because Misty was the first with the UC, in the eyes of the law, that is the only reason that makes her the #1, not because she is so skilled, or experienced. Because she was first, she is the one who brought the rest in, and that's it.

All the above, MOO.

[1Chump]

Originally Posted by bessie

Hi 1chump. Glad you rang in here. I'll reply to more later when i get home. For now I want to point out it's my understanding that under Florida's conspiracy laws Misty would have been guilty of trafficking even if she had not beem physically present during the transactions.

References to come.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't saying she could not be charged. I said the cases would be weak.

IMO, they would have a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Misty was trafficking drugs and/or a ringleader/mastermind if her only involvement was phone calls with the "buyer" but others were selling the druga and making the money.

[lonetraveler]

Originally Posted by Lanie

BBM

I think it's pointless and a little strange to compare them where if one is in the wrong, the other is somehow automatically either guiltless or coerced.

For me to say Misty was the 'ringleader' in the drug sting doesn't make Ron her mindless puppet zombie. IMO, Misty and Ron are just as guilty of dealing drugs, it just happens Misty agreed to with an UC while Ron agreed to with Misty. IMO, because Misty was the first with the UC, in the eyes of the law, that is the only reason that makes her the #1, not because she is so skilled, or experienced. Because she was first, she is the one who brought the rest in, and that's it.

All the above, MOO.

JMO, but I don't think any of these players are guiltless with the exception of Haleigh and Jr. I do however believe that the sentencing in the drug cases were bias and prejudicial and Lady Justice was not wearing a blindfold for a few of the cases. Although I would not want any of these players to enter through my door, I like to think that everyone is entitled to an impartial court and judged and sentenced for the actual crimes they committed and not for crimes that they have not yet been charged. It goes against the constitution to be sentenced for something other than what you are charged with, right? I want the guilty party or parties to be arrested and tried in accordance with the law. It is very disappointing and frustrating that there has been no arrests made for Haleigh's death and disposal.

[Bluesky#1]

Originally Posted by 1Chump

I wasn't saying she could not be charged. I said the cases would be weak.

IMO, they would have a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Misty was trafficking drugs and/or a ringleader/mastermind if her only involvement was phone calls with the "buyer" but others were selling the druga and making the money.

Exactly. This was clearly what happened in the case involving the UC detective, DB and Misty Croslin and that is why I have an issue with Judge Berger's ruling and the fact Mr. Fields didn't fight to get Misty's case thrown out. Did Judge Berger read and study the Incident Report?

I reviewed the Incident Report on the transaction involving Misty Cummings, Donna Brock and the UC detective; and the detective didn't even clarify who he handed the $800 to and how of that money Misty received before Donna exited the vehicle to drive home supposedly to Orlando. IMO the UC omitted this important detail so he could wrongfully cover-up the facts and charge Misty for drug trafficking.

<snipped>

Cummings entered the front passenger side of the UC vehicle and Donna Brock entered the rear of the UC vehicle. Detective then purchased 155 endocet (oxycodone) pills from Cummings and Brock for $800.00. After the transaction was complete, Brock exited the UC vehicle and Cummings remained inside the UC vehicle so that the detective could drive her home, 116 Tyler Street, Satsuma, FL. Cummings stated that “she” (Brock) lives in Orlando. Cummings told the Detective that “she” (Brock) needed the money.

Call #4: Cummings said Brock would sell $800 worth of prescription drugs.

It is reasonable to assume from reading this report that all the pills belonged to DB who had the scripts; and Misty got involved only to help out her friend who “needed the money”.

When Misty appeared before Judge Berger, the Judge said Misty "liked the money" yet no one TMK clarified exactly how much MC received of the $800. If Misty is to be charged with drug trafficking, isn’t it imperative for the UC to state in his report and to Judge Berger at the sentencing hearing who he handed the money to and how much Misty received of the $800 before DB left the vehicle? If DB drove home to Orlando after this incident, it is highly unlikely Misty received any of the $800 after the fact.

The IR states the detective gave Misty $100 as a brokerage fee which suggests to me Misty didn't receive any money from the sale of drugs and Donna pocketed it all.

<snipped>

At approximately 0513 hours, Det. and Cummings arrived at 116 Tyler Street, Satsuma, Florida. Det. gave Cummings $100.00 as an additional payment for brokering the transaction with Brock. Cummings thanked Det. and told him that Brock will sell her pills again in three months and told him to call her if he needed any additional pills.


Without knowing exactly how much Misty received of the $800, and based on what is written in this incident report, couldn't it be reasonably argued that Misty only received the brokerage fee of $100.00 and nothing more or the UC wouldn't have felt the need to give her the brokerage fee?


Based on what was written in the IR, Misty is not an inexperienced drug trafficker based on her emotional state at the time, and the fact she willingly gave the UC way too much information. If Misty had known better, she would not have accompanied Donna to this meeting with the detective. MC said repeatedly she did not want to get in trouble but of course the UC hid his real identity from her to trick her. The Judge did not render a fair verdict and I wonder if she truly had a grasp on the real circumstances.

<snipped>

she said she would call him back from another phone. She stated that she did not like to talk on her own phone. Misty called to ensure the detective was en route and was coming alone. Misty Croslin stated that she was all freaked out because this was a lot of pills and a lot of money.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...ort.part.1.pdf

[Bluesky#1]

I can't edit my post #231 and correct my error, but I meant to say,

"Misty is not IMO an experienced drug trafficker based on her emotional state at the time and the fact she willingly gave way too much information to the UC cop. "

[Lanie]

Originally Posted by lonetraveler

JMO, but I don't think any of these players are guiltless with the exception of Haleigh and Jr. I do however believe that the sentencing in the drug cases were bias and prejudicial and Lady Justice was not wearing a blindfold for a few of the cases. Although I would not want any of these players to enter through my door, I like to think that everyone is entitled to an impartial court and judged and sentenced for the actual crimes they committed and not for crimes that they have not yet been charged. It goes against the constitution to be sentenced for something other than what you are charged with, right? I want the guilty party or parties to be arrested and tried in accordance with the law. It is very disappointing and frustrating that there has been no arrests made for Haleigh's death and disposal.

Originally Posted by Bluesky#1

Exactly. This was clearly what happened in the case involving the UC detective, DB and Misty Croslin and that is why I have an issue with Judge Berger's ruling and the fact Mr. Fields didn't fight to get Misty's case thrown out. Did Judge Berger read and study the Incident Report?

I reviewed the Incident Report on the transaction involving Misty Cummings, Donna Brock and the UC detective; and the detective didn't even clarify who he handed the $800 to and how of that money Misty received before Donna exited the vehicle to drive home supposedly to Orlando. IMO the UC omitted this important detail so he could wrongfully cover-up the facts and charge Misty for drug trafficking.

<snipped>

Cummings entered the front passenger side of the UC vehicle and Donna Brock entered the rear of the UC vehicle. Detective then purchased 155 endocet (oxycodone) pills from Cummings and Brock for $800.00. After the transaction was complete, Brock exited the UC vehicle and Cummings remained inside the UC vehicle so that the detective could drive her home, 116 Tyler Street, Satsuma, FL. Cummings stated that “she” (Brock) lives in Orlando. Cummings told the Detective that “she” (Brock) needed the money.

Call #4: Cummings said Brock would sell $800 worth of prescription drugs.

It is reasonable to assume from reading this report that all the pills belonged to DB who had the scripts; and Misty got involved only to help out her friend who “needed the money”.

When Misty appeared before Judge Berger, the Judge said Misty "liked the money" yet no one TMK clarified exactly how much MC received of the $800. If Misty is to be charged with drug trafficking, isn’t it imperative for the UC to state in his report and to Judge Berger at the sentencing hearing who he handed the money to and how much Misty received of the $800 before DB left the vehicle? If DB drove home to Orlando after this incident, it is highly unlikely Misty received any of the $800 after the fact.

The IR states the detective gave Misty $100 as a brokerage fee which suggests to me Misty didn't receive any money from the sale of drugs and Donna pocketed it all.

<snipped>

At approximately 0513 hours, Det. and Cummings arrived at 116 Tyler Street, Satsuma, Florida. Det. gave Cummings $100.00 as an additional payment for brokering the transaction with Brock. Cummings thanked Det. and told him that Brock will sell her pills again in three months and told him to call her if he needed any additional pills.


Without knowing exactly how much Misty received of the $800, and based on what is written in this incident report, couldn't it be reasonably argued that Misty only received the brokerage fee of $100.00 and nothing more or the UC wouldn't have felt the need to give her the brokerage fee?


Based on what was written in the IR, Misty is not an inexperienced drug trafficker based on her emotional state at the time, and the fact she willingly gave the UC way too much information. If Misty had known better, she would not have accompanied Donna to this meeting with the detective. MC said repeatedly she did not want to get in trouble but of course the UC hid his real identity from her to trick her. The Judge did not render a fair verdict and I wonder if she truly had a grasp on the real circumstances.

<snipped>

she said she would call him back from another phone. She stated that she did not like to talk on her own phone. Misty called to ensure the detective was en route and was coming alone. Misty Croslin stated that she was all freaked out because this was a lot of pills and a lot of money.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...ort.part.1.pdf

I'll admit, it kind of bothers me we have 5 people on video tape selling drugs and they are being perceived as victims while LE and the judicial system are being villianized.

IMO, you are not meaning because some of these people now in prison are being looked at in connection with the disappearance and probable homicide of a little 5-year-old girl, they should be exempt and/or disqualified for being arrested, charged, and sentenced for any other crimes they commit, yet it seems like that IS what you are saying, and I don't get it.

Were at least Ron, Misty, and Tommy being watched by LE because Haleigh is missing and to date still not found? IMO, yes! Because LE was watching these people, did they see an opportunity to get them in a drug sting? IMO, again, yes! Did LE take that opportunity? IMO, yes!! I don't understand how this is wrong. None of these people were forced to deal drugs, IMO, they all seemed quite happy to be doing it. Even Ron, when asked about it, responded he was going to prison, so even Ron, IMO, accepts he was in the wrong. I don't see this as being any more biased than any other reason LE would have for going to the trouble to have a drug sting, as IMO, they don't just randomly set up a sting operation to go after people they don't suspect of being criminals.

As far as the charges they got, while IMO it is possible for LE to have charged them with less than what they did, I don't see anywhere they were charged with more than what they did. If they sold 250 pills, they were charged for 250, not 500. Where is the law that states if a person sells 250 pills, they can only be charged for selling 200? As far as Misty getting or not getting any part of the $800, she did receive a $100 brokerage fee, for BROKERING THE DEAL. Where is the law that states she must receive a certain amount of money above and beyond what she received, or she must receive a certain amount of the payment for the pills in addition to what she received as a brokerage fee?

Using Misty as an example, I personally do not feel her sentence had anything to do with Haleigh. IMO, Misty, with an attorney, did nothing to make a case for herself to qualify for YO program. However, let's say she did. The YO program is at the judge's discretion, it is not mandatory. The judge said she thought about the YO, but it would only be 6 (or 4, I forget), and the judge was not willing to be that lenient on Misty, which only left her with the minimum mandatory, 25 years. The judge could have done the max, 30 years, IIRC, but she did not. What about that? Then we have Hope, who was much, much less involved than Misty, who also did not get YO, and IMO, it is going to be a heck of a stretch to blame that on a Haleigh bias. FTR, I think if anyone should have gotten YO, it would have been Hope, but, IMO, like Misty, even with an attorney, she did nothing to make a judge feel like that was a good choice.

IMO, LE is doing the best they can with what little they have to work with, and IMO, if these people are stupid enough to lay themselves out there and be so careless to get busted in a UC sting, LE is well within their rights to take advantage of it, and I say kudos to them.

All the above is MOO.

[Bluesky#1]

Originally Posted by Lanie

I'll admit, it kind of bothers me we have 5 people on video tape selling drugs and they are being perceived as victims while LE and the judicial system are being villianized.

IMO, you are not meaning because some of these people now in prison are being looked at in connection with the disappearance and probable homicide of a little 5-year-old girl, they should be exempt and/or disqualified for being arrested, charged, and sentenced for any other crimes they commit, yet it seems like that IS what you are saying, and I don't get it.

Were at least Ron, Misty, and Tommy being watched by LE because Haleigh is missing and to date still not found? IMO, yes! Because LE was watching these people, did they see an opportunity to get them in a drug sting? IMO, again, yes! Did LE take that opportunity? IMO, yes!! I don't understand how this is wrong. None of these people were forced to deal drugs, IMO, they all seemed quite happy to be doing it. Even Ron, when asked about it, responded he was going to prison, so even Ron, IMO, accepts he was in the wrong. I don't see this as being any more biased than any other reason LE would have for going to the trouble to have a drug sting, as IMO, they don't just randomly set up a sting operation to go after people they don't suspect of being criminals.

As far as the charges they got, while IMO it is possible for LE to have charged them with less than what they did, I don't see anywhere they were charged with more than what they did. If they sold 250 pills, they were charged for 250, not 500. Where is the law that states if a person sells 250 pills, they can only be charged for selling 200? As far as Misty getting or not getting any part of the $800, she did receive a $100 brokerage fee, for BROKERING THE DEAL. Where is the law that states she must receive a certain amount of money above and beyond what she received, or she must receive a certain amount of the payment for the pills in addition to what she received as a brokerage fee?

Using Misty as an example, I personally do not feel her sentence had anything to do with Haleigh. IMO, Misty, with an attorney, did nothing to make a case for herself to qualify for YO program. However, let's say she did. The YO program is at the judge's discretion, it is not mandatory. The judge said she thought about the YO, but it would only be 6 (or 4, I forget), and the judge was not willing to be that lenient on Misty, which only left her with the minimum mandatory, 25 years. The judge could have done the max, 30 years, IIRC, but she did not. What about that? Then we have Hope, who was much, much less involved than Misty, who also did not get YO, and IMO, it is going to be a heck of a stretch to blame that on a Haleigh bias. FTR, I think if anyone should have gotten YO, it would have been Hope, but, IMO, like Misty, even with an attorney, she did nothing to make a judge feel like that was a good choice.

IMO, LE is doing the best they can with what little they have to work with, and IMO, if these people are stupid enough to lay themselves out there and be so careless to get busted in a UC sting, LE is well within their rights to take advantage of it, and I say kudos to them.

All the above is MOO.

The St. John’s County case involved ONLY Misty Cummings and Donna Brock not RC, HS and TC.

At Donna Brock's sentencing hearing, the incidents involving Ronald Cummings, Tommy Croslin, and Hope Sykes weren't mentioned, so why should the crimes Misty committed in PC be brought up at the hearing in SJC? At the SJC hearing, it seems all of Misty’s charges overlapped and there was no distinction made which isn’t fair IMO.

I am not satisfied with the wording in this incident report. Misty said Donna wanted to sell $800 worth of pills because she needed the money, so if I was Misty’s lawyer I would have asked the detective to clarify the amount he gave to Cummings and Brock because obviously he didn’t hand $800 to Cummings and Brock so what really happened in this transaction is what I want to know.

<snipped>

Cummings entered the front passenger side of the UC vehicle and Donna Brock entered the rear of the UC vehicle. Detective then purchased 155 endocet (oxycodone) pills from Cummings and Brock for $800.00. After the transaction was complete, Brock exited the UC vehicle and Cummings remained inside the UC vehicle so that the detective could drive her home, 116 Tyler Street, Satsuma, FL. Cummings stated that “she” (Brock) lives in Orlando. Cummings told the Detective that “she” (Brock) needed the money.

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law...5177292-1.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...ort.part.1.pdf

[1Chump]

Originally Posted by Lanie

I'll admit, it kind of bothers me we have 5 people on video tape selling drugs and they are being perceived as victims while LE and the judicial system are being villianized.

IMO, you are not meaning because some of these people now in prison are being looked at in connection with the disappearance and probable homicide of a little 5-year-old girl, they should be exempt and/or disqualified for being arrested, charged, and sentenced for any other crimes they commit, yet it seems like that IS what you are saying, and I don't get it.

Were at least Ron, Misty, and Tommy being watched by LE because Haleigh is missing and to date still not found? IMO, yes! Because LE was watching these people, did they see an opportunity to get them in a drug sting? IMO, again, yes! Did LE take that opportunity? IMO, yes!! I don't understand how this is wrong. None of these people were forced to deal drugs, IMO, they all seemed quite happy to be doing it. Even Ron, when asked about it, responded he was going to prison, so even Ron, IMO, accepts he was in the wrong. I don't see this as being any more biased than any other reason LE would have for going to the trouble to have a drug sting, as IMO, they don't just randomly set up a sting operation to go after people they don't suspect of being criminals.

As far as the charges they got, while IMO it is possible for LE to have charged them with less than what they did, I don't see anywhere they were charged with more than what they did. If they sold 250 pills, they were charged for 250, not 500. Where is the law that states if a person sells 250 pills, they can only be charged for selling 200? As far as Misty getting or not getting any part of the $800, she did receive a $100 brokerage fee, for BROKERING THE DEAL. Where is the law that states she must receive a certain amount of money above and beyond what she received, or she must receive a certain amount of the payment for the pills in addition to what she received as a brokerage fee?

Using Misty as an example, I personally do not feel her sentence had anything to do with Haleigh. IMO, Misty, with an attorney, did nothing to make a case for herself to qualify for YO program. However, let's say she did. The YO program is at the judge's discretion, it is not mandatory. The judge said she thought about the YO, but it would only be 6 (or 4, I forget), and the judge was not willing to be that lenient on Misty, which only left her with the minimum mandatory, 25 years. The judge could have done the max, 30 years, IIRC, but she did not. What about that? Then we have Hope, who was much, much less involved than Misty, who also did not get YO, and IMO, it is going to be a heck of a stretch to blame that on a Haleigh bias. FTR, I think if anyone should have gotten YO, it would have been Hope, but, IMO, like Misty, even with an attorney, she did nothing to make a judge feel like that was a good choice.

IMO, LE is doing the best they can with what little they have to work with, and IMO, if these people are stupid enough to lay themselves out there and be so careless to get busted in a UC sting, LE is well within their rights to take advantage of it, and I say kudos to them.

All the above is MOO.

Above BBM.

I'm sorry but I think you may have misunderstood what many of us are saying. No one has said that they are victims and/or should be exempt for any other crimes.

We were discussing how Misty was treated compared to the others. Misty's sentence seems to have more to do with Haleigh than the drugs. The "brokering" fee comes into play in that fee volunteered by the UC is the only way Misty received any type of benefit beyond "helping a friend." Without the brokering fee, Misty was along for the ride but did not sell the drugs or collect money. So Donna who obtained the prescription, sold the pills and collected $800 received a lessor charge and less time than Misty who received $100 as a finder fee.

IMO, 5 people charged in the same crimes, the two people who benefited the least from the crimes were Hope and Misty. Hope and Misty also were the youngest of the bunch. Misty is the only one without priors and with mitigating factors that should reduce her charges and/or time yet is the only one to receive the maximum charges and time.

IMO, it is more than obvious that Misty and Hope were used by the ones with the prior arrests who had no chance of getting sentenced under the YO statutes. It is also more than obvious that Misty being the key in Haleigh's case played a huge part in why she received tougher changes and sentencing.

IMO, I have not seen anyone say that those 5 are victims of the system and LE/Court are villians. Just that Misty was a "victim" (your word...I would use "dupe") of the adults who used her to sell drugs and/or make money to protect themselves and LE/Courts allowed those adults to get away with it.

[Lanie]

Originally Posted by Bluesky#1

The St. John’s County case involved ONLY Misty Cummings and Donna Brock not RC, HS and TC.

At Donna Brock's sentencing hearing, the incidents involving Ronald Cummings, Tommy Croslin, and Hope Sykes weren't mentioned, so why should the crimes Misty committed in PC be brought up at the hearing in SJC? At the SJC hearing, it seems all of Misty’s charges overlapped and there was no distinction made which isn’t fair IMO.

At the time of Misty's sentencing in SJC, Misty had already pleaded 'no contest' to that charge, and also the charges in PC. Do you understand that because Misty pled 'no contest' to these charges, she is no longer considered 'innocent until proven guilty by a court of law' of those charges? Therefore, those charges can be used to determine her sentencing for a separate charge, regardless of whether or not she has been sentenced on those charges yet.

Donna Brock was not charged with the PC crimes, therefore did not plead innocent, guilty, or no contest to those crimes, therefore those crimes have nothing to do with her sentencing.

Originally Posted by Bluesky#1

I am not satisfied with the wording in this incident report. Misty said Donna wanted to sell $800 worth of pills because she needed the money, so if I was Misty’s lawyer I would have asked the detective to clarify the amount he gave to Cummings and Brock because obviously he didn’t hand $800 to Cummings and Brock so what really happened in this transaction is what I want to know.

<snipped>

Cummings entered the front passenger side of the UC vehicle and Donna Brock entered the rear of the UC vehicle. Detective then purchased 155 endocet (oxycodone) pills from Cummings and Brock for $800.00. After the transaction was complete, Brock exited the UC vehicle and Cummings remained inside the UC vehicle so that the detective could drive her home, 116 Tyler Street, Satsuma, FL. Cummings stated that “she” (Brock) lives in Orlando. Cummings told the Detective that “she” (Brock) needed the money.

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law...5177292-1.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...ort.part.1.pdf

Again, unless you can show it makes a difference in Misty's charge to have received money from the $800, then it doesn't matter, other than maybe to satisfy personal curiousity.

[Lanie]

Originally Posted by 1Chump

Above BBM.

I'm sorry but I think you may have misunderstood what many of us are saying. No one has said that they are victims and/or should be exempt for any other crimes.

We were discussing how Misty was treated compared to the others. Misty's sentence seems to have more to do with Haleigh than the drugs. The "brokering" fee comes into play in that fee volunteered by the UC is the only way Misty received any type of benefit beyond "helping a friend." Without the brokering fee, Misty was along for the ride but did not sell the drugs or collect money. So Donna who obtained the prescription, sold the pills and collected $800 received a lessor charge and less time than Misty who received $100 as a finder fee.

IMO, 5 people charged in the same crimes, the two people who benefited the least from the crimes were Hope and Misty. Hope and Misty also were the youngest of the bunch. Misty is the only one without priors and with mitigating factors that should reduce her charges and/or time yet is the only one to receive the maximum charges and time.

IMO, it is more than obvious that Misty and Hope were used by the ones with the prior arrests who had no chance of getting sentenced under the YO statutes. It is also more than obvious that Misty being the key in Haleigh's case played a huge part in why she received tougher changes and sentencing.

IMO, I have not seen anyone say that those 5 are victims of the system and LE/Court are villians. Just that Misty was a "victim" (your word...I would use "dupe") of the adults who used her to sell drugs and/or make money to protect themselves and LE/Courts allowed those adults to get away with it.

There is no proof Misty was used, duped, or victimized by anyone. This is all opinion. There is no proof an 18 year old is incapable of making a few phone calls and scrounging up some drugs to sell without outside interference. Just because someone in that 18 year old's circle is older and has prior convictions does not automatically mean said 18 year old cannot act on her own without that person's manipulation and/or guidance. That, too, is opinion. My opinion is Misty was more than capable of acting on her own. So our opinions differ, and that's fine.

What is not opinion, but is fact, and is on videotape, and has transcripts, is Misty committed a crime. Should you care to look up the Florida statutes of drug trafficking, which is also fact and not opinion, you will find, clearly spelled out, the amount of drugs, the types of drugs, what a person can be charged with, and what the minimum mandatory sentence for that charge will be.

By bringing Donna with her oxy and the UC together with the intention of Donna selling the oxy to the UC, which Misty verifies by telling the UC she is helping out a friend, and cements by accepting $100 from the UC to do it, Misty is (the following bolded by me).
(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:
a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.
b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.
c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.

http://www.thelawman.net/PracticeAre...g-Statutes.asp

These are the facts I am basing my opinions on. Please, in what way was the court biased? How was Misty charged and/or sentenced with a crime she didn't commit? Where in the above does it state a person must partake of the money paid for drugs to be charged and found guilty of drug trafficking? Where does it state a person must be acting alone, and/or not under the influence of someone else, or a person must have priors, or a person aged 18 does not qualify?

[twall]

Originally Posted by Lanie

There is no proof Misty was used, duped, or victimized by anyone. This is all opinion. There is no proof an 18 year old is incapable of making a few phone calls and scrounging up some drugs to sell without outside interference. Just because someone in that 18 year old's circle is older and has prior convictions does not automatically mean said 18 year old cannot act on her own without that person's manipulation and/or guidance. That, too, is opinion. My opinion is Misty was more than capable of acting on her own. So our opinions differ, and that's fine.

What is not opinion, but is fact, and is on videotape, and has transcripts, is Misty committed a crime. Should you care to look up the Florida statutes of drug trafficking, which is also fact and not opinion, you will find, clearly spelled out, the amount of drugs, the types of drugs, what a person can be charged with, and what the minimum mandatory sentence for that charge will be.

By bringing Donna with her oxy and the UC together with the intention of Donna selling the oxy to the UC, which Misty verifies by telling the UC she is helping out a friend, and cements by accepting $100 from the UC to do it, Misty is (the following bolded by me).
(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:
a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.
b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.
c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.

http://www.thelawman.net/PracticeAre...g-Statutes.asp

These are the facts I am basing my opinions on. Please, in what way was the court biased? How was Misty charged and/or sentenced with a crime she didn't commit? Where in the above does it state a person must partake of the money paid for drugs to be charged and found guilty of drug trafficking? Where does it state a person must be acting alone, and/or not under the influence of someone else, or a person must have priors, or a person aged 18 does not qualify?

Thank you for looking up the statute and saving me the time to do so!
I too wanted to point out the constructive possession clause in the statute.
It doesn't make a difference if the uc wrote in the report who he handed the money to, Misty was guilty by association (my term, lol) and they have the whole thing on tape. Misty knew what was going on, she set up the deal so she is trafficking drugs!

[1Chump]

Originally Posted by Lanie

There is no proof Misty was used, duped, or victimized by anyone. This is all opinion. There is no proof an 18 year old is incapable of making a few phone calls and scrounging up some drugs to sell without outside interference. Just because someone in that 18 year old's circle is older and has prior convictions does not automatically mean said 18 year old cannot act on her own without that person's manipulation and/or guidance. That, too, is opinion. My opinion is Misty was more than capable of acting on her own. So our opinions differ, and that's fine.

What is not opinion, but is fact, and is on videotape, and has transcripts, is Misty committed a crime. Should you care to look up the Florida statutes of drug trafficking, which is also fact and not opinion, you will find, clearly spelled out, the amount of drugs, the types of drugs, what a person can be charged with, and what the minimum mandatory sentence for that charge will be.

By bringing Donna with her oxy and the UC together with the intention of Donna selling the oxy to the UC, which Misty verifies by telling the UC she is helping out a friend, and cements by accepting $100 from the UC to do it, Misty is (the following bolded by me).
(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:
a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.
b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.
c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.

http://www.thelawman.net/PracticeAre...g-Statutes.asp

These are the facts I am basing my opinions on. Please, in what way was the court biased? How was Misty charged and/or sentenced with a crime she didn't commit? Where in the above does it state a person must partake of the money paid for drugs to be charged and found guilty of drug trafficking? Where does it state a person must be acting alone, and/or not under the influence of someone else, or a person must have priors, or a person aged 18 does not qualify?

I'm not talking generalities about what an 18 is or is not capable of doing. I'm limited my discussion to Misty and the facts in the incident reports.

There is evidence that Misty was incapable of "scrounging up some drugs to sell without outside interference. Misty NEVER went to get the drugs on her own. Misty was always accompanied by someone older with prior arrests. That older person with prior arrests was ALWAYs the one who got out of the UC's car with the money that was paid specifically for the drugs.

I have NEVER said that Misty did not commit a crime.

As far as having an opinion about Misty being capable of acting on her own. I have not discussed any opinion about Misty acting alone because the incident reports clearly state that she never did act alone.

[kant]

Originally Posted by 1Chump

I'm not talking generalities about what an 18 is or is not capable of doing. I'm limited my discussion to Misty and the facts in the incident reports.

There is evidence that Misty was incapable of "scrounging up some drugs to sell without outside interference. Misty NEVER went to get the drugs on her own. Misty was always accompanied by someone older with prior arrests. That older person with prior arrests was ALWAYs the one who got out of the UC's car with the money that was paid specifically for the drugs.

I have NEVER said that Misty did not commit a crime.

As far as having an opinion about Misty being capable of acting on her own. I have not discussed any opinion about Misty acting alone because the incident reports clearly state that she never did act alone.

YES!


....and there it is...


moo

[Bluesky#1]

Misty didn't know TM set her up with Donna so Donna could squeeze information about HaLeigh out of her, and as a result of this deceitful ploy, when Misty exposed personal information about her unlawful activities in Putnam County to Donna, rather than telling her to stop, Donna jumped at the opportunity to use Misty to make money for herself.

Misty barely knew Donna when Misty offered to risk her life to sell 72 grams of Rx drugs for her for absolutely nothing in return. If Misty and Donna weren't busted in SJC, could it be argued that Donna blackmailed Misty with this information or not?

Misty was entrusted to Donna’s care on this trip and when Misty told her she was afraid of getting in trouble and began suffering from stress, Donna could have told her to call the customer and cancel the meeting but she didn’t because she was only concerned about the money she was promised.

Likewise, Misty could have taken control of the situation and called the customer to cancel their upcoming engagement when she started freaking out, but if Donna convinced her to go through with it because she “needed the money”, it would have made it very difficult for Misty to say no and back out at the last minute especially since Donna was driving her to PC and the deal would only take a matter of minutes.

The fact DB didn’t share the money with Misty proves she exploited Misty. Exploitation is “the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain. Misty would not have benefited at all from this deal if the "customer" hadn’t given her a brokering fee of $100.00.

This situation sounds identical to the treatment Misty endured while living under the influence of the Cummings family. When Misty returned home and wanted to stop seeing Ron, AS and TN would send the children over to convince her to come back, and according to AH, Ron was not giving any money when they lived together.

In this article written by Dana Treen about Misty’s hearing in St. John's County,
Mr. Treen states Misty was pregnant at 14 years-of-age, which is news to me; and Judge Berger did retire to her chambers to decide Misty's sentence.

<snipped>

After retiring to her chambers to decide a sentence, .....

Pregnant at 14, she ran away to New Jersey with a boyfriend but was found and brought back to Florida.

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law...5177292-1.html

[nyvictoria]

I've steered clear of this whole conversation, mainly because, like LE and the judicial system, I can't seem to separate Haleigh from the drug charges. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about this case as most of the posters here. If I leave poor Haleigh's unknown fate out of the equation and think about just the drug charges, I know I want these "unusual people" (self-editing) off the street. I know if one of my children got their hands on an oxycodone pill that any one of these "upstanding citizens" were peddling, I'd want the maximum punishment for everyone involved.

So, that's what it comes down to for me. Drugs kill!! The people who sell them destroy lives. Just one little illegally obtained prescription pill can kill a child (or adult, for that matter). It doesn't matter (to me) who they sold to, how many they sold, where they sold them, how they got them, why they sold them or how old they were when they sold them. I don't care if one, or all of them, had a tragic childhood. I don't care if one was influenced by another. If they're out there doing something that could harm my child, I want them all put away for the maximum number of years allowed by law!

I know pedophiles can and do get out in less time and some murderers waltz away with a slap on the wrist compared to what Misty is facing and, yes, it's horrendously unfair to the victims. I have an opinion as to who was the "ringleader" in the drug dealing but I still think they all deserve the maximum sentence. I'm only sorry they can't lock the whole lot of 'em up for life! This may not be a popular opinion on the "Defending Misty" thread but I had to put it out there.


jmo

[krkrjx]

Originally Posted by nyvictoria

I've steered clear of this whole conversation, mainly because, like LE and the judicial system, I can't seem to separate Haleigh from the drug charges. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about this case as most of the posters here. If I leave poor Haleigh's unknown fate out of the equation and think about just the drug charges, I know I want these "unusual people" (self-editing) off the street. I know if one of my children got their hands on an oxycodone pill that any one of these "upstanding citizens" were peddling, I'd want the maximum punishment for everyone involved.

So, that's what it comes down to for me. Drugs kill!! The people who sell them destroy lives. Just one little illegally obtained prescription pill can kill a child (or adult, for that matter). It doesn't matter (to me) who they sold to, how many they sold, where they sold them, how they got them, why they sold them or how old they were when they sold them. I don't care if one, or all of them, had a tragic childhood. I don't care if one was influenced by another. If they're out there doing something that could harm my child, I want them all put away for the maximum number of years allowed by law!

I know pedophiles can and do get out in less time and some murderers waltz away with a slap on the wrist compared to what Misty is facing and, yes, it's horrendously unfair to the victims. I have an opinion as to who was the "ringleader" in the drug dealing but I still think they all deserve the maximum sentence. I'm only sorry they can't lock the whole lot of 'em up for life! This may not be a popular opinion on the "Defending Misty" thread but I had to put it out there.


jmo

I agree with all you have said. I want to have sympathy for Misty, but I cannot. She did the crime; she should do the time.

The only issue I have with any of this is that offenders committing far worse crimes get less time, and even those sentenced to similar or more time in the end serve less because they are eligible for time off for good behavior, where drug traffickers are not.

Mandatory sentences are clearly stated in Florida statutes. I have no problem whatsoever with said mandatory sentences being the rule rather than the exception.

What I do have a problem with is the lack of mandatory sentencing laws for violent offenders, in particular those who prey on children. I would like to see mandatory minimums for such crimes implemented nationwide, but for now we do not have that. But not having that does not mean other mandatory sentencing laws should be eliminated or ignored.

That said, I believe we could see some or all of our players out before serving their full sentences. I feel change is in the air regarding mandatory minimums and, like it or not, those changes may set our players free sooner rather than later. JMO.

[Nonni Brenda]

Originally Posted by krkrjx

I agree with all you have said. I want to have sympathy for Misty, but I cannot. She did the crime; she should do the time.

The only issue I have with any of this is that offenders committing far worse crimes get less time, and even those sentenced to similar or more time in the end serve less because they are eligible for time off for good behavior, where drug traffickers are not.

Mandatory sentences are clearly stated in Florida statutes. I have no problem whatsoever with said mandatory sentences being the rule rather than the exception.

What I do have a problem with is the lack of mandatory sentencing laws for violent offenders, in particular those who prey on children. I would like to see mandatory minimums for such crimes implemented nationwide, but for now we do not have that. But not having that does not mean other mandatory sentencing laws should be eliminated or ignored.

That said, I believe we could see some or all of our players out before serving their full sentences. I feel change is in the air regarding mandatory minimums and, like it or not, those changes may set our players free sooner rather than later. JMO.

For me, it is so hard to seperate the drug case and Haleigh's case. I know that is not right, from a legal standpoint.

I try not to think about it this way, but I just can't get past believing that if Misty had not been sentenced for the drug charges, and nothing new comes up to convict her of her part (as well as the other's parts) in precious missing Haleigh's case, then no one will be punished for such a horrible crime. I know that isn't reasonable, but I can't seem to be able to change my feelings on that.

[B4igo2it]

[quote=Bluesky#1;5747526]Misty didn't know TM set her up with Donna so Donna could squeeze information about HaLeigh out of her, and as a result of this deceitful ploy, when Misty exposed personal information about her unlawful activities in Putnam County to Donna, rather than telling her to stop, Donna jumped at the opportunity to use Misty to make money for herself.

Misty barely knew Donna when Misty offered to risk her life to sell 72 grams of Rx drugs for her for absolutely nothing in return. If Misty and Donna weren't busted in SJC, could it be argued that Donna blackmailed Misty with this information or not?

Misty was entrusted to Donna’s care on this trip and when Misty told her she was afraid of getting in trouble and began suffering from stress, Donna could have told her to call the customer and cancel the meeting but she didn’t because she was only concerned about the money she was promised.

Likewise, Misty could have taken control of the situation and called the customer to cancel their upcoming engagement when she started freaking out, but if Donna convinced her to go through with it because she “needed the money”, it would have made it very difficult for Misty to say no and back out at the last minute especially since Donna was driving her to PC and the deal would only take a matter of minutes.

The fact DB didn’t share the money with Misty proves she exploited Misty. Exploitation is “the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain. Misty would not have benefited at all from this deal if the "customer" hadn’t given her a brokering fee of $100.00.
Clearly, this was a calculated effort to "seal the deal" by the LE and UC to show that Misty participated due to monetary gain. However, Misty was easily coerced into a trafficking charge due to her willingness to "ASSIST and HELP out others" (DB/UC) because it ultimately gave her a sense of being important, wanted and/or needed - while expecting (just like the babysitting) nothing in return. Is it a crime to accept a gift by another, especially when no expectation was expressed at any time; no intent of any monetary or personal gain?

This situation sounds identical to the treatment Misty endured while living under the influence of the Cummings family. When Misty returned home and wanted to stop seeing Ron, AS and TN would send the children over to convince her to come back, and according to AH, Ron was not giving any money when they lived together. (Nor was Misty for housekeeping/babysitting etc.)

********** MOO ************* BBM/ColorBM ******

This is exactly what should have been used in Misty's defense for this StJ's allegation. I have to question why Misty even pled guilty in the first place.
At this point, I believe an appeal should be filed based upon the above comments and improper legal counsel to the StJ's sentencing!)

Misty is uneducated, easily manipulated, swayed by material and possesions (manicure, hair sylist, jet-setting to NY, tatoo ... possibly her own cell phone KWIM?) and wanting to fit in with an older crowd (I know of absolutely no person Misty associated with that was of her age) - basically she was a child living in an adult world. Those responsible for her welfare were barely capable for responsibility of their own lives.

It is obvious to me that Misty helped others by babysitting because she loves children, likes to help out others, and it made her feel appreciated. When TN offered her money for babysitting on FEB 9; she told her she would do so without pay (again taken advantage of by an older adult perhaps?) and I believe the weekend bender with WBG/Nay ended because she was gonna babysit for her brother and his wife as it was their anniversary.
One could argue she helped out DB in return for all the pampering that was given to her; not to mention the trip to Disney world.

While this post addresses the StJ's charge and how easily it was to manipulate Misty into being a willing participant it can also be shown that this is a common characteristic of her with respect to the upcoming PCSO charges. In addition, it may be in Misty's best interest that new counsel is assigned as Fields clearly did not have her best interests as he did not prove to the court her vulnerabilitites, weaknesses, immaturity, and naïvety - IMO.

[4Jacy]

Originally Posted by nyvictoria

I've steered clear of this whole conversation, mainly because, like LE and the judicial system, I can't seem to separate Haleigh from the drug charges. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about this case as most of the posters here. If I leave poor Haleigh's unknown fate out of the equation and think about just the drug charges, I know I want these "unusual people" (self-editing) off the street. I know if one of my children got their hands on an oxycodone pill that any one of these "upstanding citizens" were peddling, I'd want the maximum punishment for everyone involved.

So, that's what it comes down to for me. Drugs kill!! The people who sell them destroy lives. Just one little illegally obtained prescription pill can kill a child (or adult, for that matter). It doesn't matter (to me) who they sold to, how many they sold, where they sold them, how they got them, why they sold them or how old they were when they sold them. I don't care if one, or all of them, had a tragic childhood. I don't care if one was influenced by another. If they're out there doing something that could harm my child, I want them all put away for the maximum number of years allowed by law!

I know pedophiles can and do get out in less time and some murderers waltz away with a slap on the wrist compared to what Misty is facing and, yes, it's horrendously unfair to the victims. I have an opinion as to who was the "ringleader" in the drug dealing but I still think they all deserve the maximum sentence. I'm only sorry they can't lock the whole lot of 'em up for life! This may not be a popular opinion on the "Defending Misty" thread but I had to put it out there.


jmo

This needs more than a click on "Thanks." You put that so well and I agree with you wholeheartedly. If this standard were set for 1 pill or 1,000 pills being distributed, sold, whatever, perhaps then we would see less and less of this horible problem that has killed or destroyed so many people. TY

[Nonni Brenda]

MOO
I agree that LE had a reason to go after these drug dealers if they were dealing drugs. To me that is simple.
I also feel that some of the players were treated unfairly, not necessarily by LE.
The unfairness came into play because of very poor legal representation. JMO

[Bluesky#1]

[quote=B4igo2it;5845149]

Originally Posted by Bluesky#1

Misty didn't know TM set her up with Donna so Donna could squeeze information about HaLeigh out of her, and as a result of this deceitful ploy, when Misty exposed personal information about her unlawful activities in Putnam County to Donna, rather than telling her to stop, Donna jumped at the opportunity to use Misty to make money for herself.

Misty barely knew Donna when Misty offered to risk her life to sell 72 grams of Rx drugs for her for absolutely nothing in return. If Misty and Donna weren't busted in SJC, could it be argued that Donna blackmailed Misty with this information or not?

Misty was entrusted to Donna’s care on this trip and when Misty told her she was afraid of getting in trouble and began suffering from stress, Donna could have told her to call the customer and cancel the meeting but she didn’t because she was only concerned about the money she was promised.

Likewise, Misty could have taken control of the situation and called the customer to cancel their upcoming engagement when she started freaking out, but if Donna convinced her to go through with it because she “needed the money”, it would have made it very difficult for Misty to say no and back out at the last minute especially since Donna was driving her to PC and the deal would only take a matter of minutes.

The fact DB didn’t share the money with Misty proves she exploited Misty. Exploitation is “the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain. Misty would not have benefited at all from this deal if the "customer" hadn’t given her a brokering fee of $100.00.
Clearly, this was a calculated effort to "seal the deal" by the LE and UC to show that Misty participated due to monetary gain. However, Misty was easily coerced into a trafficking charge due to her willingness to "ASSIST and HELP out others" (DB/UC) because it ultimately gave her a sense of being important, wanted and/or needed - while expecting (just like the babysitting) nothing in return. Is it a crime to accept a gift by another, especially when no expectation was expressed at any time; no intent of any monetary or personal gain?

This situation sounds identical to the treatment Misty endured while living under the influence of the Cummings family. When Misty returned home and wanted to stop seeing Ron, AS and TN would send the children over to convince her to come back, and according to AH, Ron was not giving any money when they lived together. (Nor was Misty for housekeeping/babysitting etc.)

********** MOO ************* BBM/ColorBM ******

This is exactly what should have been used in Misty's defense for this StJ's allegation. I have to question why Misty even pled guilty in the first place.
At this point, I believe an appeal should be filed based upon the above comments and improper legal counsel to the StJ's sentencing!)

Misty is uneducated, easily manipulated, swayed by material and possesions (manicure, hair sylist, jet-setting to NY, tatoo ... possibly her own cell phone KWIM?) and wanting to fit in with an older crowd (I know of absolutely no person Misty associated with that was of her age) - basically she was a child living in an adult world. Those responsible for her welfare were barely capable for responsibility of their own lives.

It is obvious to me that Misty helped others by babysitting because she loves children, likes to help out others, and it made her feel appreciated. When TN offered her money for babysitting on FEB 9; she told her she would do so without pay (again taken advantage of by an older adult perhaps?) and I believe the weekend bender with WBG/Nay ended because she was gonna babysit for her brother and his wife as it was their anniversary.
One could argue she helped out DB in return for all the pampering that was given to her; not to mention the trip to Disney world.

While this post addresses the StJ's charge and how easily it was to manipulate Misty into being a willing participant it can also be shown that this is a common characteristic of her with respect to the upcoming PCSO charges. In addition, it may be in Misty's best interest that new counsel is assigned as Fields clearly did not have her best interests as he did not prove to the court her vulnerabilitites, weaknesses, immaturity, and naïvety - IMO.

When is Misty allowed to request another PD? It is becoming increasingly difficult to watch Mr Fields drop the ball every time it is in his court.

I wish a lawyer with fire and passion had stepped forward and taken over as Misty's lawyer. All Mr. Fields has going for him is a pretty face. Mr. Fields priority was to obtain a psychiatric diagnosis for his client and he never did. I think someone should file a complaint against Mr. Fields with the Bar Association like Crystal did with her lawyer

Is there a video of Donna and Misty selling pills to the UC detective? Who did the UC detective hand the $800 to and how much money did Donna have in her possession when she left the car? The person who wrote the incident report forgot to include these important details that could help Misty's case. The detective wrote he handed $800 to both Donna and Misty and Mr. Fields let it go. Mr. Fields didn't bother to cross-examine the LE officer that attended the hearing either. It was imperative for Mr. Fields to describe Donna Brock's role in the crime at Misty's sentencing hearing and he didn't even mention her name and neither did Judge Berger!

In August, Misty's attorney, Robert Fields, told the judge that a "landslide of evidence," including the undercover video, led to her to plead no contest.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/2532531...13/detail.html

Donna Brock told Judge Berger she gave her pills to Misty for personal use and it was her script she gave her and that is what Misty sold.

Judge Berger sentenced Donna about 1 month before Misty so does anyone else think that prevented Misty from receiving a fair sentence? IMO Judge Berger should not have sentenced both these women separately because their cases were intertwined. Hearing Donna's case first put Misty at a disadvantage. Judge Berger pretended at Misty's hearing she wasn't aware of Misty's relationship with Donna so she could justify not sentencing Misty as a youth offender. JMO

[twall]

[quote=Bluesky#1;5861893]

Originally Posted by B4igo2it

When is Misty allowed to request another PD? It is becoming increasingly difficult to watch Mr Fields drop the ball every time it is in his court.

I wish a lawyer with fire and passion had stepped forward and taken over as Misty's lawyer. All Mr. Fields has going for him is a pretty face. Mr. Fields priority was to obtain a psychiatric diagnosis for his client and he never did. I think someone should file a complaint against Mr. Fields with the Bar Association like Crystal did with her lawyer

Is there a video of Donna and Misty selling pills to the UC detective? Who did the UC detective hand the $800 to and how much money did Donna have in her possession when she left the car? The person who wrote the incident report forgot to include these important details that could help Misty's case. The detective wrote he handed $800 to both Donna and Misty and Mr. Fields let it go. Mr. Fields didn't bother to cross-examine the LE officer that attended the hearing either. It was imperative for Mr. Fields to describe Donna Brock's role in the crime at Misty's sentencing hearing and he didn't even mention her name and neither did Judge Berger!

In August, Misty's attorney, Robert Fields, told the judge that a "landslide of evidence," including the undercover video, led to her to plead no contest.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/2532531...13/detail.html

Donna Brock told Judge Berger she gave her pills to Misty for personal use and it was her script she gave her and that is what Misty sold.

Judge Berger sentenced Donna about 1 month before Misty so does anyone else think that prevented Misty from receiving a fair sentence? IMO Judge Berger should not have sentenced both these women separately because their cases were intertwined. Hearing Donna's case first put Misty at a disadvantage. Judge Berger pretended at Misty's hearing she wasn't aware of Misty's relationship with Donna so she could justify not sentencing Misty as a youth offender. JMO

Yes, there is a video of Donna, Misty and the UC doing the drug transaction.
I posted it here, probably in a Donna thread.

It doesn't matter who handled the $$$$$, there are recordings of Misty being the middle man and setting up the deal. That sunk her.

Also, read the statute, if you are present at the deal, aka "constructive possession" you can be charged for trafficking even though you did not handle the money or the drugs. Same deal goes for felony murder. For example, if someone is shot and killed during a robbery and you did not pull the trigger but were there when it happened you can be charged the same as the shooter.

(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b) or (2)(a), or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:

a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.

c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=& URL=Ch0893/SEC135.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0893->Section%20135#0893.135

[B4igo2it]

who in their right mind would pay $800 for a prescription of pills? It would be much cheaper to go to the doctor, complain about your aching back ...