Good

Ex-Montana Teacher to Be Re-Sentenced in Rape Case

former high school teacher who raped a 14-year-old student could be headed back to prison after the Montana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that his original one-month sentence was too short under state sentencing laws.

The court ordered a new judge to re-sentence defendant Stacey Dean Rambold.

Rambold was released after fulfilling the original sentence last fall, and is expected to remain free pending his reappearance in state District Court.

Wednesday's unanimous decision means Rambold must serve a minimum of two years in prison under state law, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said.

The high court cited in part the actions of District Judge G. Todd Baugh, of Billings, who caused outrage by suggesting that the victim shared responsibility for her rape and had some control over the situation.

The defendant was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim, one of his students, killed herself in 2010 while Rambold was awaiting trial.

I'll admit

I haven't glued myself to television news and watched everything to do with the George Zimmerman trial. I haven't spent hours watching the pundits and experts analyse the case. I don't know all the evidence presented to the jury. I do know that, according to CNN's George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin's death that the jury apparently had reasonable doubt regarding both the second-degree murder charge and the option they had of manslaughter.

Earlier in the day, the jury had asked the court for clarification on its instructions regarding manslaughter. The jury couldn't have even posed such a query a few days ago: Judge Debra Nelson ruled Thursday, over the defense's vehement objection, to include manslaughter as an option for jurors, in addition to a second-degree murder charge.

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe that he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin." That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.

For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Trayvon Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

So Zimmerman is a free man, or as free as any person who's already been convicted by public opinion can ever be, even though he stalked a teenager who was minding his own business when the authorities specifically told him not to, sought out an altercation, etc. I get that he no doubt felt his life was endangered when the blows came, but he went out of his way to put himself into that position. I get that they couldn't go with either of the charges, because of the reasonable doubt as to his intention to kill Martin. There was no option for 'involuntary manslaughter', apparently. But, he intentionally chose to pursue the matter and I really hate this feeling that justice wasn't served in this case, and that a boy needlessly died due to an adult's decision to pursue a series of actions that led to a gun being used against an unarmed person. I feel so sorry for his family. Regardless of the race issue, what Zimmerman did was wrong, although apparently not successfully prosecutable in the state of Florida.

I saw something on Twitter earlier from Jay Smooth, @jsmooth995, that was posted before the verdict: 'The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.' There will always be those who will blithely decide to take the law into their own hands, but a conviction might at least have given them some pause. This makes me sad and disappointed. Justice may have spoken, but I don't think it was served.

But first, here's a bit of weird news

Pa. mistrial declared when prosthetic eye pops out

An assault trial over a fight that cost a man his left eye ended in a mistrial Wednesday when his prosthetic eye popped out as he was testifying, startling jurors.

John Huttick was weeping on the witness stand in Common Pleas Court as he testified about the impact of losing his eye in the August 2011 fight in the parking lot of a bar called the New Princeton Tavern, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported (http://bit.ly/XPaiAb).

Suddenly, the $3,000 prosthetic blue eye popped out. Huttick caught it and cried out as two jurors gasped and started to rise. "I couldn't believe it just came out," Huttick said.

Judge Robert Coleman, who called it an "unfortunate, unforeseen incident," granted a mistrial motion by defense attorney Eileen Hurley. He scheduled a new trial for March 4.

I have a friend who is totally blasé about bodily fluids and other nasty things, but is grossed out by various things to do with the eye, including prostheses. I wonder what his response as a juror would have been?

When teachers snap...

Teacher Peter Harvey 'beat pupil while shouting die'
He was apparently shouting 'die, die, die' as he beat a student in the head with a dumbbell. Now he's on trial for 'grievous bodily harm with intent'.

UPDATE 4/30/2010: Harvey was acquitted on the charge:

Teacher Peter Harvey cleared of attempting to kill boy

It emerged during the four-day trial that pupils at the school were trying to wind up Harvey so his reaction could be caught on a camcorder being used secretly by a girl in the class.

The footage was then to be passed around the school as a way of "humiliating" the teacher.

'Pupils abused' Mansfield school attack teacher