I was lucky to be able to attend a closed session at the Reno Justice Court. My girlfriend is roommates with an elderly woman, and that woman has a niece who is district attorney Peg Samples. She was very kind and was able to allow us to watch the sentencing of this case. The case was the sentencing from The State of Nevada vs. Matthew David Fugate and he had two separate charges in the past for sexually assaulting two teenage boys.
Mr. Fugate was being represented by his defense attorney John Ohlson. This incident was over a year ago, and he was found guilty of count I and not guilty of count II. However, Mr. Fugate was playing the system and basically getting everything postponed to increase his chances of becoming a free man. The judge, …show more content…
My job has been preventing me to find a criminal justice related event to observe, and this case came out of the blue. This is in addition to the fact that I found the case extremely interesting. I don’t think that it is fair to judge someone guilty by their demeanor and behavior, but since I am not the judge I do think that Mr. Fugate was guilty. My thoughts on the trial were that even though everyone disagreed with Fugate, I did believe that he did not get a fair trial the first time. I know that juries are supposed to listen to the facts only and make decisions based off of that, but I do understand where Mr. Fugate is coming from when he believes that the jury was biased from the beginning. He was so concerned about his sentencing and dates, he didn’t mention anything about the actual offense, and he was unable to look at either family during the sentencing despite being a past family friend. There were times during the sentencing where he said he was guilty and times where he also said he was not guilty making any verdict hard to determine. In my opinion by doing this he only deferred his fate while also discrediting himself. I was briefly able to speak to the district attorneys after the trial but not for long because they needed to counsel the families. The DA said that she was annoyed because she thinks in the end Mr. Fugate is going to be proven guilty anyway and that the judge is not supposed to submit the motion that postponed the
Mr. Fugate was being represented by his defense attorney John Ohlson. This incident was over a year ago, and he was found guilty of count I and not guilty of count II. However, Mr. Fugate was playing the system and basically getting everything postponed to increase his chances of becoming a free man. The judge, …show more content…
My job has been preventing me to find a criminal justice related event to observe, and this case came out of the blue. This is in addition to the fact that I found the case extremely interesting. I don’t think that it is fair to judge someone guilty by their demeanor and behavior, but since I am not the judge I do think that Mr. Fugate was guilty. My thoughts on the trial were that even though everyone disagreed with Fugate, I did believe that he did not get a fair trial the first time. I know that juries are supposed to listen to the facts only and make decisions based off of that, but I do understand where Mr. Fugate is coming from when he believes that the jury was biased from the beginning. He was so concerned about his sentencing and dates, he didn’t mention anything about the actual offense, and he was unable to look at either family during the sentencing despite being a past family friend. There were times during the sentencing where he said he was guilty and times where he also said he was not guilty making any verdict hard to determine. In my opinion by doing this he only deferred his fate while also discrediting himself. I was briefly able to speak to the district attorneys after the trial but not for long because they needed to counsel the families. The DA said that she was annoyed because she thinks in the end Mr. Fugate is going to be proven guilty anyway and that the judge is not supposed to submit the motion that postponed the