Friday, August 26, 2011

Why does alleged killer still have public defender?

At an early court date (June 3) of Timothy S. Smith, charged with murdering Kurt Milliman, the judge asked Smith if he had an attorney. When he answered that he didn't, the judge appointed a public defender. At the time it seemed to me to be a stop-gap measure, so that Smith would not be unrepresented.

Now, two and one-months later, Smith still has a public defender. Yet he has never applied for one and has never filed a financial affidavit to indicate whether or not he is entitled to a public defender.


The State should challenge the continued participation of the Public Defender. Why hasn't it?

If Smith is indigent and has no income (it's hard to have an income when you're in jail on a first-degree murder charge and can't make a $900,000 bail) and no assets, then let him say so and get a public defender appointed in the proper manner. Is his wife working? Does she have assets?

Is the legal door being left wide open for Smith to say in the future that he was not property represented and get any future conviction thrown out?


Holy said...

Who is Timothy S. Miller and why are you wrongfully accusing him of being involved in Milliman's murder?

You're so excited about finding fault, start looking in the mirror you moron.

Kimberly had the PD appointed after she filed an affidavit showing that, like you, she didn't have a pot to pee in or a window to toss it out of.

A couple of days later, her husband/pimp Timothy Smith, that's S-M-I-T-H you goof, received a PD appointment as well. If he didn't have any money going into the jail - as evidenced by his wife's affidavit - he damn sure doesn't have any now. That, at least, you seem to concede.

I wasn't at the hearing on June 3rd when the court made the appointment, but I have been there on other occasions where there is no affidavit filled out by the defendant. The judge merely queries him under oath. Were you there? Nah, didn't think so. That would be the responsible thing to do if you're going to get your shriveled gonads in an uproar over something that doesn't really concern you.

I really suspect that the judge, the state's attorney, the public defender and everyone else that actually DOES have a legitimate stake in the game can handle it without your guidance.

You are and, probably until the day you die, be nothing but a meddling fool who only thinks he knows the score. Unfortunately you rarely know or convey the complete score. You are like that George Carlin character "And now for some baseball scores... 6 to 2, 7 to 3, 8 to 2!"

Please don't stop, we all need a good laugh.

Oh, by the way, Clarence Darrow... That guy in McHenry on the eavesdropping charge? He'd better hope that the factual situation gave him reasonable suspicion that he was or about to become the victim of a crime. That's the Catch-22 to the eavesdropping law and it's been in place long before it became an aggravated offense to embarrass the police with their own words. Bad law but he ain't gonna beat it just because a whore in Chicago played a couple of dumb-ass cops for the fools they were.

Gus said...

My error in the name of the accused in the Milliman case has been corrected.

As a matter of fact, I was in the courtroom on June 3. As you say, you weren't.

The only question the judge asked him was whether he had an attorney. When Smith answered that he did not, the judge appointed one. No questions about assets. No questions about income or resources.

Jen said...

Wow Holy, there is a way to make a point without being so evil, isn't there?