Bob Shell

[Dinesh]

Dear Bill,

Why do you think appeals exist?

If Bob loses his appeal, I may have to accept -- with difficulty -- that he killed her. Until then, as I say, I find it likelier than not that his appeal will succeed. This is not 'armchair lawyering': it is a reasonable (though not necessarily correct) assessment of the situation affecting a man I have known for 20 years.

Roger

Since a jury found him guilty isn't it fair to say that he IS guilty until proven innocent? Further, aren't Appellate Court decisions based on the legal procedure or the trial rather than evidence?

 

[catem]

I wonder what line would be taken on this on a models' forum?

I don't believe any positive or interesting discussion can come from this thread beyond speculation.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I don't believe any positive or interesting discussion can come from this thread beyond speculation.

Agreed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Further, aren't Appellate Court decisions based on the legal procedure or the trial rather than evidence?

Not exactly. If the evidence is unreliable (tampered with in some way, chain of custody of evidence severely flawed), this is grounds for declaring a verdict 'unsafe'. It is not impossible that the prosecution overreached themselves: a lot of weak evidence can lead to the same conclusion as a small amount of strong evidence, but if any significant portion of that weak evidence can be overturned, the whole conviction may also be overturned.

I repeat: I could be wrong. Obviously, I don't want to believe he killed her, but what I want to believe is neither here nor there. All I am saying is that until the appeal is over, I would not be too ready to write off Bob's inevitable protestations of innocence, as some seem willing to do.

 

[jstraw]

Since a jury found him guilty isn't it fair to say that he IS guilty until proven innocent? Further, aren't Appellate Court decisions based on the legal procedure or the trial rather than evidence?

The handling and admissability of evidence IS procedural, is it not?

 

[Dinesh]

The handling and admissability of evidence IS procedural, is it not?

Perhaps, but I thought that evidence tends to be more of a Trial Court issue while the admissibility of evidence tends to be more of an Appelate Court issue.

 

[JBrunner]

Having sat on a jury in a felony case, I can say the verdict of guilt or innocence is largely result of the courtroom show. It rarely has much to do with what actually occurred, unless the case is very factual and clear (those hardly ever get to trial, except under over zealous prosecutors), and in any case, the lawyers play to emotions in most reasonings. Shell would have faced an uphill battle in the venue of his trial, because of nature of his work runs contrary to the moral judgements of most "peers" to be found in that region.

The non professional jurors in the US can and do ignore facts and basic legal concepts, such as being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt, if there is not a sufficiently assertive and educated person in the group to remind and explain the concepts (sometimes repeatedly) and generally want to find based on their personal perceptions of the individual.

As to Shells guilt or innocence, I have no idea, and certainly wouldn't pretend to. I'm just relating how it generally works, in my first hand experience.

 

[jeroldharter]

Hello?

I don't know Mr. Shell but it's hard to have much sympathy for the guy. Not that you can believe everything in the press but "in love" with a 19 year old drug addict? Taking photos of himself touching (or whatever) her corpse? Dropping Echinacea into her drink? Hard to imagine that he was surreptitiously trying to cure her of a cold. I suppose one could argue which crimes he committed but not innocence.

I am not sure how someone could look at these accounts and think he could win an appeal. Even if he could win legally he would be another OJ. Please explain why this case would win an appeal based on the newspaper accounts. Seems more like they justify a harsh sentence.

 

[copake_ham]

Having sat on a jury in a felony case, I can say the verdict of guilt or innocence is largely result of the courtroom show. It rarely has much to do with what actually occurred, unless the case is very factual and clear (those hardly ever get to trial, except under over zealous prosecutors), and in any case, the lawyers play to emotions in most reasonings. Shell would have faced an uphill battle in the venue of his trial, because of nature of his work runs contrary to the moral judgements of most "peers" to be found in that region.

The non professional jurors in the US can and do ignore facts and basic legal concepts, such as being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt, if there is not a sufficiently assertive and educated person in the group to remind and explain the concepts (sometimes repeatedly) and generally want to find based on their personal perceptions of the individual.

As to Shells guilt or innocence, I have no idea, and certainly wouldn't pretend to. I'm just relating how it generally works, in my first hand experience.

If you really thought the trial on which you served as a juror was just a show then you should have requested to be excused from the jury.

First off, the fate of a human being was in your hands, you owed the situation greater attention than you might apply to watching a movie.

Second, trial by jury is an essential element of our judicial system designed to ensure the defendant of a fair hearing. While individuals trained in the law can, and do at time sit on juries, the entire purpose of the jury system is to provide a trial of one's peers.

FWIW, while the US Constitution ensures a defendant of a RIGHT to a jury trial; this does not preclude a defendant from waiving that right and requesting a trial before a judge only (a.k.a. "bench trial").

The fact that virtually no defendants ever requests that is a testament to the efficacy of the jury trial system. I can assure you that if it were otherwise, then defense lawyers would regularly advise their clients to demand bench trials. And that just about never happens.

 

[BWGirl]

Hello?

I don't know Mr. Shell but it's hard to have much sympathy for the guy. Not that you can believe everything in the press but "in love" with a 19 year old drug addict? Taking photos of himself touching (or whatever) her corpse? Dropping Echinacea into her drink? Hard to imagine that he was surreptitiously trying to cure her of a cold. I suppose one could argue which crimes he committed but not innocence.

I am not sure how someone could look at these accounts and think he could win an appeal. Even if he could win legally he would be another OJ. Please explain why this case would win an appeal based on the newspaper accounts. Seems more like they justify a harsh sentence.

Ah... at last! Yes.

 

[MattKing]

If you really thought the trial on which you served as a juror was just a show then you should have requested to be excused from the jury.

First off, the fate of a human being was in your hands, you owed the situation greater attention than you might apply to watching a movie.

Second, trial by jury is an essential element of our judicial system designed to ensure the defendant of a fair hearing. While individuals trained in the law can, and do at time sit on juries, the entire purpose of the jury system is to provide a trial of one's peers.

FWIW, while the US Constitution ensures a defendant of a RIGHT to a jury trial; this does not preclude a defendant from waiving that right and requesting a trial before a judge only (a.k.a. "bench trial").

The fact that virtually no defendants ever requests that is a testament to the efficacy of the jury trial system. I can assure you that if it were otherwise, then defense lawyers would regularly advise their clients to demand bench trials. And that just about never happens.

This shows you how important it is to look at systems, as a whole.

In Canada, an accused charged with a sufficiently serious offense also has a right to trial by jury. In contradistinction, however, any one who is trained in the law is not permitted to serve on juries, nor are police officers.

In addition, jurors are barred by law from discussing their deliberations outside of the jury room.

We don't elect judges, and superior court judges almost without exception come from the ranks of experienced and effective trial counsel.

One of the results of all this is that a substantial number of accused receive advice from counsel and do elect trial before judge alone.

Matt

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In addition, jurors are barred by law from discussing their deliberations outside of the jury room.

This is also true in the US system, at least during the trial. Afterward, they are free to sell their stories to the tabloid press or post them on APUG, as they choose. I've done jury duty several times and have seen two civil trials to the end (one ended in a settlement, the other a verdict), but the tabloid press wasn't interested in my lurid tales of possible podiatry malpractice or a slip and fall on a poorly shoveled stairwell.

 

[copake_ham]

This shows you how important it is to look at systems, as a whole.

In Canada, an accused charged with a sufficiently serious offense also has a right to trial by jury. In contradistinction, however, any one who is trained in the law is not permitted to serve on juries, nor are police officers.

In addition, jurors are barred by law from discussing their deliberations outside of the jury room.

We don't elect judges, and superior court judges almost without exception come from the ranks of experienced and effective trial counsel.

One of the results of all this is that a substantial number of accused receive advice from counsel and do elect trial before judge alone.

Matt

Matt,

You correctly "caught" my narrow qualification that, at least in New York State, the jury system no longer automatically excludes persons connected with the legal system.

This is actually a very recent change in New York (I cannot speak for other jurisdictions in the US on this point) at the initiative of our present Chief Justice, Judith Kaye, of the NY Court of Appeals (which is our highest NYS jurisdiction - even though our first level court is, confusingly called the New York Supreme Court. That confusion goes back to around 1700 during colonial days - a history lesson we can share some day).

Regardless, Justice Kaye opined that the automatic exclusion of "officers of the court" (e.g. lawyers etc.) from jury service had gotten out of hand. [Note: at the end, the excluded groups included all kinds of medical personnel including obstetricians, chiropracters, etc. in addition to the sole-entrepreneurs etc.of various "professions" whom would apparently be "economically harmed" by performing jury service].

So she opined that all citizens, regardless of status, are eligible for jury service. As a result, early on, even she was "called to perform jury service". Of course it was a bit of showboating - but it was intended to make it clear that egregious attempt to avoid service would no longer be tolerated. This is why it was unsurpring that a couple of months ago, NYC's Mayor Bloomberg was called to jury service and did 2 days in the waiting room before being excused.

In reality, of course, the attorneys, be they prosecutor or defense, will use "pre-emptory exceptions" to keep law-based professionals from serving. But in NYS at least, such status is no longer an "automatic out".

 

[JBrunner]

If you really thought the trial on which you served as a juror was just a show then you should have requested to be excused from the jury.

First off, the fate of a human being was in your hands, you owed the situation greater attention than you might apply to watching a movie.

Second, trial by jury is an essential element of our judicial system designed to ensure the defendant of a fair hearing. While individuals trained in the law can, and do at time sit on juries, the entire purpose of the jury system is to provide a trial of one's peers.

FWIW, while the US Constitution ensures a defendant of a RIGHT to a jury trial; this does not preclude a defendant from waiving that right and requesting a trial before a judge only (a.k.a. "bench trial").

The fact that virtually no defendants ever requests that is a testament to the efficacy of the jury trial system. I can assure you that if it were otherwise, then defense lawyers would regularly advise their clients to demand bench trials. And that just about never happens.

I was one of two people on the jury not swayed by "the show" the prosecution put on, alluding to the defendants creed and culture.

The system sucks George.

I take my obligations as a citizen seriously, including speaking out against things that aren't working as they should.

You missed my point. I am well aware of the Constitution and a few other things, including the absolute inanity of many persons that are selected for jury service. It takes no qualification at all, and that turns trials into a game played for malleable minds. That should be changed. That's my point.

 

[copake_ham]

.....
You missed my point. I am well aware of the Constitution and a few other things, including the absolute inanity of many persons that are selected for jury service. ....

They're "inanity" is:

a) Your opinion of them;

b) A definition of "one's peers" when you disagree with them.

We would hardly be served with justice if we excluded the average, inane person in deference to someone's determination of who is "qualified".

Yes, after 800 years or so, the present system "sucks". Please come up with a better one.

The fact is, most folks hate the jury system when it "lets off" people they think are guilty except when they hate the jury system because it convicts people they think are innocent!

Replace the name Bob Shell with OJ Simpson in this thread and carry on your argument!

No one here attended or served on the jury for either trial.

But you all have "opinions" as to the outcome - opinions that are interestingly divergent although based on nothing but......

 

[jon koss]

How about this? Elect the jurors and randomly select the members of the House of Representatives, instead of vice versa! You with me on this one, JBrunner?!

...

Yes, after 800 years or so, the present system "sucks". Please come up with a better one. ....

 

[JBrunner]

They're "inanity" is:

a) Your opinion of them;

b) A definition of "one's peers" when you disagree with them.

We would hardly be served with justice if we excluded the average, inane person in deference to someone's determination of who is "qualified".

Yes, after 800 years or so, the present system "sucks". Please come up with a better one.

The fact is, most folks hate the jury system when it "lets off" people they think are guilty except when they hate the jury system because it convicts people they think are innocent!

Replace the name Bob Shell with OJ Simpson in this thread and carry on your argument!

No one here attended or served on the jury for either trial.

But you all have "opinions" as to the outcome - opinions that are interestingly divergent although based on nothing but......

George,

You seem to have me confused with someone else.

I have no idea if Shell ( already said that) or OJ are guilty or innocent, but based on my experience, a verdict has little to do with it. I have no problem with any person disagreeing with anything, but a bigoted, ignorant, idiot is a bigoted, ignorant, idiot. (if you know the PC term, I could use that instead).

All I believe is that a juror could be expected to have a basic understanding of the fundamental precepts you espouse, and the capacity of abstract thought. Many do not. Pointing out that experience is the duty of any responsible person, who believes in the right to trial by jury, and would like to see it actually function as it was intended.

I believe one of solemn duties of a citizen is to point out inequities and injustice.

Sometimes the sacred cow needs to get an arm up its arse to get it going again.

 

[JBrunner]

How about this? Elect the jurors and randomly select the members of the House of Representatives, instead of vice versa! You with me on this one, JBrunner?!

I wonder if we could tell any difference.

 

[patrickjames]

He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. Any support for his "innocence" or his ability to get off on appeal is frankly insulting to the girl who is no longer with us. Shell was obviously not the man the people on this forum whom called him a friend think he was. Any speculation based on newspaper stories or Shell's own account is frankly lunacy, even if you are a lawyer or a friend. A jury found him guilty. It is time to accept it and move on. Be sorry for the poor girl who he took advantage of, don't be sorry for Shell. Imagine if that poor girl was your daughter. Always remember the victims because they can't speak for themselves.

I never met the man, but his images always gave me the creeps. I never understood why people held him in such esteem. It is not like he was overly talented. He was a third rate photographer at best, and a poor author. Now he is a convicted felon. I think good riddance is in order and I for one hope he isn't set loose on a technicality.

Patrick

 

[Peter De Smidt]

They're "inanity" is:

We would hardly be served with justice if we excluded the average, inane person in deference to someone's determination of who is "qualified".

Why? You yourself said that people can waive a jury trial for a trial by judge. Would this inherently mean giving up justice?

Plato highlighted a number of serious problems with the jury system thousands of years ago in the Apology. As JBrunner stated, many trials, such as the one described in the Apology, are shows that play upon the emotions of the jurors instead of on the facts in the case. A case in point, look at the historical statistics concerning black men who are accused of raping white women and compare that to the statistics regarding white men who rape black women. Do you think those verdicts track the truth closely?

The laws are so complicated that we need specialists with years of training to understand them. Not only does this undermine the essential action-guiding purpose of law, it means that your average citizen has a very poor grasp of what the law really is. And since that's the case, it's all too easy to befuddle them.

Regarding Shell, the legal system determines legal guilt, but that's not the same thing as guilt or innocence non-stop.

 

[Roger Hicks]

He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. . . I never met the man, but his images always gave me the creeps. I never understood why people held him in such esteem. It is not like he was overly talented. He was a third rate photographer at best, and a poor author. Now he is a convicted felon. I think good riddance is in order and I for one hope he isn't set loose on a technicality.

If nothing else needs to be said, why are you so keen on saying it?

 

[juan]

Just a couple of points from someone who once practiced criminal law - an appeal is for the correction of errors. Those errors are generally procedural, although the appellate court can take a look at the sufficiency, as well as the admissibility, of the evidence.

The old saw is that if you've got the law on your side, you argue the law, if you've got the facts on your side, you argue the facts, if you have neither, you just generally raise hell. I'm glad to say I never had to resort to the latter.
juan

 

[Rolleiflexible]

He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. Any support for his "innocence" or his ability to get off on appeal is frankly insulting to the girl who is no longer with us. Shell was obviously not the man the people on this forum whom called him a friend think he was. Any speculation based on newspaper stories or Shell's own account is frankly lunacy, even if you are a lawyer or a friend. A jury found him guilty. It is time to accept it and move on. Be sorry for the poor girl who he took advantage of, don't be sorry for Shell. Imagine if that poor girl was your daughter. Always remember the victims because they can't speak for themselves.

I think people keep talking about it and not move on for the same reason the OJ case lingered: (1) Sensational and lurid facts; (2) a verdict that seems at odds with published accounts of the case.

I completely disagree with you about it being "insulting" to speculate about whether the jury got it wrong. I don't know if it did or not. I do know that there appeared to be conceded errors in handling evidence, and that the mishandled evidence was material to his conviction. As a lawyer, that sends a red flag up in my mind. My post had said only that Bob Shell's imprisonment for the rest of his life was not the foregone conclusion the earlier poster had presumed. I did not say whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. It was merely an observation that not all appeals fail, and this case seemed to offer reasonable grounds for an appeal.

You reply with an appeal to emotion: What if it were my daughter? Let me turn that around: What if your son were convicted by a jury based on false evidence, for a crime he did not commit?

Sanders

 

[jstraw]

He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. Any support for his "innocence" or his ability to get off on appeal is frankly insulting to the girl who is no longer with us.

Can you have it both ways? Endorsing the legal process with one breath and dismissing it in the next? The appeals process is part of the same system. You seem to equate a conviction being overturned on appeal with getting off on a technicality. The appeals process exists to further justice.

 

[dmr]

The discussion on this board of this topic seems quite civil compared to the samplings I've read on other fora, which show far more heat than light.

The one thing this incident does, however, is shed light on the darker side of our craft, the sordid connection that photography has with the "adult industry", and its exploitive practices, and the connections to the drug scene.