Winkleman: "No Admission of Facts" True or not?
W his "no admissions of fact" phrasing, has Mr. Winkleman crafted some virtuoso weaselling??? Anyone???
Iirc, MSM called it a plea agreement, not an Alford Plea.* Did I miss Prosecutor comments?
I'm trying to imagine the actual language on the doc. Did it say, simply: SA pleads guilty to causing death of another thru his negligence, per PR Crim Code Sec. ___???
Could he plead guilty to crim offense of NegHom but not admit some facts, such as --- 1. The date of the events. 2. He was in SJ, PR. 3. There was another person, Chloe in SJ, PR. 4. She died. 5. Death was caused by his negligence.
Seems imo, SA's guilty plea to crim NegHom is not the rosy outcome re civil suit that Winkleman is trying to convey. my2ct, could be wrong.
_______________________________________
* If prosecutor called it an Alford Plea (I missed it), then the language in doc imo would state that SA admits the Prosecutor has sufficient evidence to obtain a NegHom conviction in court, but pleads not guilty. Did SA enter an Alford Plea?
"A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court...
"In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Alford plea - Wikipedia
@Lawnguylander1964 snipped for focus. Thx for your post w link. Just jumping off of it, hoping someone will dive in w comment or correction.....LMAW Statement Regarding Anello Sentencing & Recent Filings in the Case FEBRUARY 9, 2021.... We are pleased that the criminal proceedings have finished and resulted in no jail time and no admission of facts for Chloe’s grandfather.... Trial ... April 26, 2021.
W his "no admissions of fact" phrasing, has Mr. Winkleman crafted some virtuoso weaselling??? Anyone???
Iirc, MSM called it a plea agreement, not an Alford Plea.* Did I miss Prosecutor comments?
I'm trying to imagine the actual language on the doc. Did it say, simply: SA pleads guilty to causing death of another thru his negligence, per PR Crim Code Sec. ___???
Could he plead guilty to crim offense of NegHom but not admit some facts, such as --- 1. The date of the events. 2. He was in SJ, PR. 3. There was another person, Chloe in SJ, PR. 4. She died. 5. Death was caused by his negligence.
Seems imo, SA's guilty plea to crim NegHom is not the rosy outcome re civil suit that Winkleman is trying to convey. my2ct, could be wrong.
_______________________________________
* If prosecutor called it an Alford Plea (I missed it), then the language in doc imo would state that SA admits the Prosecutor has sufficient evidence to obtain a NegHom conviction in court, but pleads not guilty. Did SA enter an Alford Plea?
"A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court...
"In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Alford plea - Wikipedia
Last edited: