Comments about ‘Man killed in court had tried to prevent witness with 'personal bias' from testifying’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 22 2014 4:25 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
U-tar
Woodland Hills, UT

We can't pay these US Marshall's enough, job well done. One less gang banger on the street!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Defendants frequently think a witness testifying against them has a "personal bias" against them. That's nothing new.

IMO the marshals did what needed to be done to protect the witness, the judge, the jury, and everybody in the courtroom.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Good job by the Marshalls.

The defense attorney's protestations: "The witness had a "personal bias" against Angilau and "highly suspect" credibility, according to Angilau's attorney, Michael Langford." just totally disgust me.

The trial is over, and there is no need for a lawyer to any longer try to twist obvious facts to sway a jury. It is obvious to any unbiased observer that the accused who attacked the witness in a courtroom was the one with "personal bias" and "highly suspect credibility."

We also need to rethink the policy of not having violent criminals (based on prior convictions, not just current charges) in shackles and handcuffs in courtrooms for fear of prejudicing the jury. Facts are facts, and to present a false choir boy image is as big a prejudicial action as shackling an accused with no prior convictions.

DesertBill
St. George, UT

Years ago I was on a jury involving homicide. The two defendants were clean cut and dressed in shirt and tie. Incriminating evidence was eliminated because it was hearsay. They were found guilty of only second-degree manslaughter. I encountered their attorney years later. He informed me his client, after being released, was now back in prison. The hearsay evidence was true and incriminating. He said when he first met them they weren’t so clean cut.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

It seems the attorney who defended the suspect is claiming that the witness has credibility issues... May I just say that I think his client had much more then just credibility issues.

Western Rover
Herriman, UT

Did Siale suppose that if he succeeded in killing the witness he would be in a better situation than if he were to just sit there and let the witness testify? Even assuming that his lawyer utterly fails to get the jury to doubt the witness? Or did he think the odds were good of escaping the courtroom and remaining at large?

Or possibly Siale simply didn't evaluate the consequences before resorting to violence? In which case I am reluctantly forced to conclude that society will be better off without him.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments