Talk:Weldon Angelos case

Untitled

Someone with more expertise: how do I edit the name of the article? I forgot to use a capital letter for his surname.

Thanks, whoever did that for me!Createangelos (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just a comment too about the importance of this page (in case that gets questioned), there are probably a lot of people who carry a licensed gun and have provided marijuana to another person on more than two occasions. It is of interest to know that any such person can be law be imprisoned for 50 years without parole.89.243.13.4 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as the orig author of this article, I like the edits which make it more accurate. I learned more about the case and learned my orig article had some errors. 78.145.167.228 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I have tried to add some more info but admittedly I don't remember the sources, so it was deleted by an editor, I'll paste it here for someone to support and put back into the article properly. It is a section called 'doubts about the case' My thinking (yes my original thinking so I have not attempted to put it anywhere!) actually is that disabling the judge to adjust the sentence interacted with the jury's concept of 'reasonable doubt,' ie that the concept of 'reasonable doubt' implies a dialogue of fairness between judge and jury which is removed in case of a mandatory fedral sentence. I can't say that, but I'm trying to see if anything like it makes sense and/or is true and supported by the existing documents, or if someone notable has made that point.

The jury were asked to make their decision beyond reasonable doubt. Unaware of the severe consequences of ignoring doubt about the trivial matter of whether a gun may have been present, it is considered likely they made their decision instead based upon the balance of probabilities. The following are the doubts which existed, and which might have been taken into consideration more seriously by the jury if they had been aware of the consequences.

The sole testimony about the gun came from the same informer paid by the prosecuter's office.
The informant had been induced to lie to Mr. Angelos and state he wished cannabis for his own use.
The testimony was not credible, that a gun beneath clothing could be seen.
The witness statement written at the time by the police did not mention any gun.
The witness statment was changed once Mr. Angelos declined the 15 year plea bargain.

The ability of a prosecutor to pay a person to induce someone to sell them 3 ounces of marajuana, and for this person having been paid, to say that there was a gun visible beneath clothing, might have induced the jury to conclude that no amount of doubt is unreasonable short of independent evidence of actual violence, if their decision might lead to life imprisonment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.167.228 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

dead link

Hi, I actually saved the .mp3 file of the Lund radio program in case the link disappeared as it seems to have done after a few years. Do I need to do anything such as put the .mp3 on a website to restore the link -- is that advisable? Or is there a way to put it in as a resource in Wikipedia. Actually I hope that I can find it it is somewhere on one of many old hard drives. I would be able to find it if it is needed to keep the Lund section of the article intact which is probably relevant to the rest of the article.

Createangelos (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a very brief ogg excerpt

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Weldon.ogg

of just the part where Robert Lund talks about the lexus car. There is a second excerpt where he is talking about the duffelbag(s). These were short .wav files as I didn't want to fill up the hard drive of a very old computer at the time, so just recorded the relevant bits. The link probably is the only way of knowing what was the title of the radio program. Createangelos (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't own the copyright (I assume) to the recorded material, it cannot be used. Another way to document that section needs to be found. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weldon Angelos case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724165342/http://www.mormoncentury.org/www/ContentPages/HearContent.aspx?PID=1000026 to http://www.mormoncentury.org/www/ContentPages/HearContent.aspx?PID=1000026

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

on stacking

In many such cases the jury decides a gun may have been present beyond an acceptable probability of reasonable doubt appropriate for a commensurate sentence, rather than a sentence commensurate with a violent crime.

This sentence is not as clear as I'd like, and the illustration does not help much. Does it mean the jury mistakenly thought the result of finding that he was armed would be a short sentence (as it might be if not for the drug connexion) and therefore gave the evidence less scrutiny than they would if they knew better? Does the reasonable doubt standard depend in practice on the severity of the sentence? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)