Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11

[PhillyAR]

Really? Do you know him? Did he tell you spending money pursuant to being granted a degree that might satisfy one requirement on his bar application was his chief concern right now? I know he's from VA, so he never got the reduced in-state Temple tuition, but can you tell us for sure if he paid all of his tuition so far out of his own pocket? Any grants, scholarships, loans? Either way, law school finances take a back seat to attempted murder defense finances and civil suit defense finances or settlement.

All that might not even matter. I'll tell you why: You assume that Temple would even let him back in if he goes to trial and is acquitted. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read that the incident happened after his first year and before he graduated. I also read that he is now in VA. And I know that any ABA-accredited law school would at least suspend you (if not expel you) immediately upon being charged with attempted murder. Mine would have. So, if all that is true, even if he gets an acquittal on all charges (not to mention expungement), he still has to persuade Temple to let him back in if he is suspended and not already expelled (which is completely at their discretion) and persuade them to let him graduate even if he fulfills the academic requirements. This assumes he did not voluntarily withdraw from school and that he did not take a leave of absence (in which case, Temple would probably still not let him back in), so it will be unlikely because law schools are notoriously afraid of people with arrests, particularly if the arrest involved a firearm.

And he cannot transfer to another school because this happened after his first year as I understand it, and you can't transfer law schools once you've begun your second year (except in extremely rare circumstances. e.g. Hurricane Katrina wipes out your law school in your second or third year and another school decides out of charity to take some of that school's students, like my school did, but even then, they only did it for first year students and then sent them back to LA, so I know of absolutely no precedent that would stand for the proposition that this guy can finish out his law education somewhere else). What this all means is that as long as I understand how far along he was in school at the time of the incident, his chances of being a lawyer are already gone.

And he did invest time, but the cost/benefit analysis is his. That's the whole point to a plea agreement. If never being able to sit for the bar exam is your chief concern, really that's a luxury to a young guy facing prison time for attempted murder among several other charges. I'd hate to speculate but some people would gladly haul cable for the rest of their lives or pour cement or start their own business if it meant maybe 90 days in county and a long probation or something less, all for doing something that could have landed them, say, 10 years in state.

I know you want to see the good guy win, but even if nothing that I just said turns out to be the case, I've still seen so many cases like this end in pleas and potential trials where there is a lot of anticipation also end in pleas.

But like I said about my prediction regarding the plea: I've been wrong before and I certainly could be wrong now.

Wow man relax.

I didn't know the stuff about not being able to transfer law school credits. But that said I would think that if Ung is found not guilty, Temple would have to let him back in to finish his degree or else they would be liable to a massive lawsuit. The exact amount of what he paid for tuition is irrelevant, whatever it was it was a lot because law school isn't cheap.

As for the sentence on any plea deal - IMO any deal would mean state time. No way is the DA going to offer a few months in county. If I'm looking at state time, no question I'm taking a jury trial.

ETA: IMO plea deals are for people who are either guilty or those can not afford a decent defense attorney.

[Big Chuck]

As for the sentence on any plea deal - IMO any deal would mean state time. No way is the DA going to offer a few months in county. If I'm looking at state time, no question I'm taking a jury trial.

Agreed. If I was looking at 2-5 years with a plea instead of 10 years for something that shouldn't even be going to trial, with video evidence to back me up, I think I'd be taking a jury trial as well. No way will they offer him 90 days and probation. If they did, the defense attorney would have to think that the prosecution knows they don't have a case, so he still might not advise taking the plea if it was offered.

[rjmst1]

Wow man relax.

I didn't know the stuff about not being able to transfer law school credits. But that said I would think that if Ung is found not guilty, Temple would have to let him back in to finish his degree or else they would be liable to a massive lawsuit. The exact amount of what he paid for tuition is irrelevant, whatever it was it was a lot because law school isn't cheap.

As for the sentence on any plea deal - IMO any deal would mean state time. No way is the DA going to offer a few months in county. If I'm looking at state time, no question I'm taking a jury trial.

ETA: IMO plea deals are for people who are either guilty or those can not afford a decent defense attorney.

I'm perfectly calm, dude.

But, please, don't start talking to me authoritatively about anyone who "has" to do anything otherwise they "would be liable to" a lawsuit until you yourself at least graduate law school. I don't mean that to sound condescending or anything, like I think lawyers are better or whatever, because I don't, but please know that there is absolutely no cause of action against a law school for kicking you out or suspending you under any contract theory whatsoever or if for any reason you do not get a degree after you pay them any amount of money. It has been tried and challenged over and over and the student always loses. And if pigs flew, that kind of lawsuit sure as hell would not be "massive."

And what he paid is relevant to the extent you brought it up to tell me why he would never plea: because he would go back to his investment in law school, which he won't for all the reasons I stated in a previous post.

Your opinion of the potential sentence for AA or AM doesn't matter. Only the judge's opinion matters. He or she has sole discretion in that matter and is not statutorily bound by anything except mandos. And that goes for Ironsight and Chuck Norris, too (and Chuck, don't start evaluating evidence now) because I of course didn't mean literally 90 days in county and probation as opposed to literally 10 years in state. It was an obviously exaggerated example to illustrate an easy point more clearly. Again, it's only up to the judge.

IYO plea deals are for sissies, but IYO a crime, its trial, evidence, and sentence are all black & white when in reality everything is arguable and a lot of things are discretionary. It may indeed be the case that this kid at least committed AA, even though no one here wants to believe he is "guilty" (in the non-legal sense) of that. Did you also believe James Joseph Cialella was guilty (in the legal sense) of AA? That's what he plead to.

But, again, like I've said all along: I could be wrong.

Ironsight- My point is there is no room in a trial for any argument about what one element of a criminal statute's legislative intent may have been for the purpose of suppressing a prosecution theory (or what he should argue or should know better than to argue or not argue, etc.). Prosecutors' theories are a valuable part of the justice system and it is their job to create them and use the evidence to prove them. The jury has to hear both sides because it doesn't matter if, for example, the defendant actually knew of an avenue of escape that actually could have been taken. It only matters what the jury decides the defendant knew based on the evidence they hear from both sides.

[Mosinshooter762]

Everything you've said is argument. And don't confuse "innocent," "not guilty," and "acquittal," esp. in light of the defense of self-defense. Justice is much more than seeing your side win. People plea all the time to lesser offenses and it does not mean they are "innocent" and it still could be the case that the American idea of justice was done.

The plea deal doesn't have to be "good," it just has to be something less than the most serious charge in order for the DA to obtain a guaranteed conviction. The prosecution wants a conviction. Only a foolish defendant rejects a plea deal only because it isn't "good enough" (meaning they might agree to a better one--that's no to say that they don't reject them because they think they can win if it came to a trial). I already explained that this is all Ung's judgment to make, and that "good" is very subjective and relative to his alternatives. Think conviction. The prosecution is not thinking sentencing as their end goal. Sentencing is a different matter and is up to the discretion of the judge and has no bearing on how good a job a prosecutor did obtaining a conviction. No one (except for Ung) actually cares if he actually goes "away" at this point. But everyone cares if he is convicted. I'm not sure what pressure you've observed or from where or from whom it came.

You may be absolutely right. However, it is very sad that a system of 'justice' could come down to this, and still be called that. Some will try to defend it, but it it hard to believe that a Declaration of Independence was signed, our Commonwealth's Constitution was ratified, a war was fought, and eventually the United States Constitution was ratified, all to come down to this.

The People of the founding generation would probably never of tolerated a system as described. They complained about less. It is sickening to see it defended (not saying you are defending it, but some do defend it).

[GunLawyer001]

. . . . So this entire case is going to hinge on the prosecution proving that Ung had the ability to escape to “perfect” safety – remember, the law requires you to retreat to “perfect safety” before resorting to deadly force. . . .

Actually, I suspect that the key issue will be whether Ung reasonably believed that three large, unarmed, athletic drunks posed an imminent risk of death or severe bodily injury, based on their unprovoked stalking and escalating physical violence, and DiDonato's failure to cease his assault when faced with the noisy end of a loaded handgun.

Personally, I think the DA has an uphill battle. A reasonable person who was "just out having fun" would have fled from the handgun. There was nothing there worth death; unless in DiDonato's mind, death was already on the table.

Imagine the Superbowl, the score is tied, the seconds are ticking away, and as a player waits to catch the ball, another player pulls a gun and aims it at him. Anybody think the big brawny football player will take steps to avoid the gun? Damn right he will. Sane people will stop any game when death rears its head.

If DiDonato was willing to kill Ung just for sport, then having a gun aimed at DiDonato would be an unsurprising part of that game. If DiDonato was just messing around, then the gun would shock him sober. And he would have backed away. Watch the video; he not only didn't back away, he didn't even try to grab the gun as he punched Ung in the face. This is a berserker attack, not limited by self-preservation, or honor, or civilization.

I think that a reasonable person, when finding an assailant undeterred by the prospect of being shot dead, would believe that his own life was in jeopardy unless he could stop the attack by any means available.

Note that PA law doesn't actually require you to be in jeopardy of imminent death or severe bodily injury before THREATENING the use of deadly force. That only applies before USING deadly force. Ung could draw that gun and threaten to kill his attackers under the standard rules of justification, basically if making them afraid of death was less harm than Ung actually being beaten in a drunken 3 on 1 attack.

I also hope that the DA or a prosecution witness fucks up and claims that "nobody ever died from just being punched and kicked", which would then allow introduction of the various news accounts of people killed by the bare hands of multiple thugs on the streets of Philadelphia in the last couple of years. Keep your fingers crossed....

[Mosinshooter762]

Note that PA law doesn't actually require you to be in jeopardy of imminent death or severe bodily injury before THREATENING the use of deadly force. That only applies before USING deadly force. Ung could draw that gun and threaten to kill his attackers under the standard rules of justification, basically if making them afraid of death was less harm than Ung actually being beaten in a drunken 3 on 1 attack.

I also hope that the DA or a prosecution witness fucks up and claims that "nobody ever died from just being punched and kicked", which would then allow introduction of the various news accounts of people killed by the bare hands of multiple thugs on the streets of Philadelphia in the last couple of years. Keep your fingers crossed....

You have confirmed what I was under the impression of in regards to drawing firearms in self-defense. Thank you for providing valuable information.

Does one have a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury, or death if say the person one has drawn on, in self-defense, keeps on coming at them in a one on one situation? How about if one reasonably believes the person they have drawn on will disarm them (say they are charging at them, or are very close already)?

If Ung was familiar with the deadly beatings that had occurred in Philadelphia prior to the incident, would that be admissible at the trial?

[rjmst1]

You may be absolutely right. However, it is very sad that a system of 'justice' could come down to this, and still be called that. Some will try to defend it, but it it hard to believe that a Declaration of Independence was signed, our Commonwealth's Constitution was ratified, a war was fought, and eventually the United States Constitution was ratified, all to come down to this.

The People of the founding generation would probably never of tolerated a system as described. They complained about less. It is sickening to see it defended (not saying you are defending it, but some do defend it).

You definitely have a point and I think most people on this board would agree with you.

American justice has little basis in common sense and is a system that we have engineered to work itself out.

But the plea agreement is still consistent with (early?) American ideals in many respects.

[rjmst1]

If Ung was familiar with the deadly beatings that had occurred in Philadelphia prior to the incident, would that be admissible at the trial?

Great question. Variation on a popular bar exam question, usually about hearsay. Depending on what kind of evidence it may be (testimony, newspaper article, etc.), if it is offered at the defense's initiative for the purpose of showing Ung's state of mind for arming himself with a deadly weapon when he went out with his girlfriend (offered to negate intent to kill and to prove that his subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger of ending was objectively reasonable), I would say yes, generally speaking. I don't agree that those stories would come in in the situation gunlawyer001 mentioned, unless we're each assuming different contexts around that "no one ever died..." quote / theory. The evidence would probably be helpful, but, of course, will not be conclusive of anything and it all depends what the jury makes of it (i.e. they could still decide that Ung had intent to kill and that his intent is still consistent with knowing of those articles--e.g. the mental state of "I'm going to kill anyone who tries that shit with me").

[Mosinshooter762]

You definitely have a point and I think most people on this board would agree with you.

American justice has little basis in common sense and is a system that we have engineered to work itself out.

But the plea agreement is still consistent with (early?) American ideals in many respects.

That is an interesting way of viewing the system. How is it consistent with American ideals? Are you referring to the adversarial system, or something deeper in American culture? Maybe you can sway us here.

[bill gray]

Uh, returning to a lower plane of philosophical discourse, is anyone going to the hearing???