In a 29 page handwritten letter, former Alderman Michael McGee begged federal judge Charles Clevert to allow him to be released pending sentencing. That letter was sent pro se, i.e., without his attorneys involvement alleging that counsel refused to use certain information that would put into “context” the allegation that he is dangerous. McGee asserts that he is not a drug dealer or gang member and explains but the 5/29/07 phone call to the government’s chief snitch (a friend at the time) was actually friendly and that the conversations about plotting to kill someone was just so much bravado and street talk.
I totally understand his desire for release and to have a fully vetted decision on the matter. However, the points he raises were subjects for trial, not a motion for release. Here’s the problem: once you are convicted, rightly or wrongly, of offenses involving threats of violence, no judge is just going to let you out because they assume, at that point, that you are guilty. His letter was well crafted and argued on the points of contention raised at trial. However, that ship has sailed. He says that he will completely accept responsibility but then deconstructs the very things that he was convicted of.
As I have said before, I think at least part of this prosecution was the result of a specific targeting (unfairly) of McGee. However, my advice to him to allow his very competent attorney to make the arguments that need to be made.
I totally understand his desire for release and to have a fully vetted decision on the matter. However, the points he raises were subjects for trial, not a motion for release. Here’s the problem: once you are convicted, rightly or wrongly, of offenses involving threats of violence, no judge is just going to let you out because they assume, at that point, that you are guilty. His letter was well crafted and argued on the points of contention raised at trial. However, that ship has sailed. He says that he will completely accept responsibility but then deconstructs the very things that he was convicted of.
As I have said before, I think at least part of this prosecution was the result of a specific targeting (unfairly) of McGee. However, my advice to him to allow his very competent attorney to make the arguments that need to be made.
John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com
No comments:
Post a Comment