Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 150
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Item 2 is uncannily similar to a Pulitzer-Prize-winning story from NYT: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/katie-engelhart-contributing-writer-new-york-times
Re: Item 1, did Stark have any explanation as to where he was, why he decided to drop everything and leave without a word to anyone, and whether or not he was with Branning? Why was his DNA on the steering wheel of Branning's abandoned car? Who was the third guy? Because it could be possible they both decide to do a midnight flit independently, but it's certainly one heck of a set of coincidences. The conviction probably is shaky, but it's more "we have very strong suspicion he dunnit but we can't prove that on the evidence we have now, so we'll have to lean on him having a past violent criminal history".
Not ideal, but it's also not like they just plucked some random guy off the street and said "you are the man!"
EDIT: Looking up online, reports of the case indicate that Stark was not completely reformed between 1994 and 2021:
It's an odd case, because if Branning was just giving Stark a lift and loaning him money on foot of a sob story where Stark planned to skip town, why would Branning also leave? Why head off in the same direction as Stark? Certainly it can't be proven Branning was murdered, or if murdered Stark did it, but there's something fishy going on there. I can see how it's highly unsatisfactory for everyone involved, from the family of Branning to the courts:
How did he end up with the car, if he had no idea what happened to Branning? I suspect this is one of those cases where we'll never know the truth unless and until the mystery third guy is located or somebody decides to give a death bed confession:
This is the precise set of circumstances where the rules of evidence are designed to prevent past criminal acts from being introduced. "Our case against this guy is weak, but look at all this bad stuff he's done. Therefore, he's a bad guy and probably did this and you the jury should convict." It's understood that prior bad acts are some of the most prejudicial/powerful things to a jury, so in theory there are limits on when those things can be introduced.
The rule against introducing prior bad acts (numbers vary, but called 404(b) at the federal level) has so many exceptions that they almost swallow the rule. Even ignoring those exceptions, convictions will often be upheld because the evidence is so overwhelming against the defendant (on camera, clear cut DNA evidence, a dozen witnesses, a solid confession, being caught with the victim's property, etc.) that the appellate court will say even if the wrongfully introduced prior bad acts weren't present, the jury still would have convicted (appellate courts apparently have crystal balls and can see alternate realities). The likelihood of a conviction getting overturned go up as the evidence against a defendant gets weaker because those prior bad acts start looking like they carried more weight with the jury. When it's a marginal case like the discussed one, that's where the bad acts can have the most impact and it's the most important to exclude them.
If it were only "bad acts from twenty years ago", I agree that it was wrong. But the guy also had current "bad acts" that weren't used. I think they were desperate to get a conviction and over-did it, but I also think the guy had a lot of explaining to do, and without the transcript of the trial I have no idea if he did manage to sufficiently explain "Okay so I have his car because..." or not.
You're right about the weak case and circumstantial evidence and prior bad acts, but there's also the complication that the entire situation seems very suspicious and with no better suspect at hand, I can't say the prosecution were absolutely in the wrong.
Whether from 20 years ago or 20 minutes ago, the important thing is the nature of the bad act, not the age. Stark had a history of robbing fast food places at gunpoint with an accomplice and stealing from the safe. That evidence could be admissible as a modus operandi, or as evidence of a common plan or scheme, if he were charged with a crime that somewhat resembled these robberies. But, as the court makes clear, the story prosecutors were running with was so different than what Stark did in 1993 that it didn't have any probative value. That he was charged with resisting arrest is wholly irrelevant since there's no indication that he resisted arrest in this case. The drug charges may have some slight relevance here, but they'd almost certainly be outweighed by the risk of prejudice.
Stark had no explanation for what happened, but he isn't obligated to provide one. That he's free from such an obligation is a cornerstone of out legal system. What you're basically arguing here is a position the rules were expressly designed to avoid: We don't know what happened. But this guy was somewhat involved, and though we don't have any real evidence against him, he's a Bad Guy, and because he's a Bad Guy you shouldn't give him the benefit of any doubt, shouldn't require any evidence, convict him on the basis that him being guilty is the best explanation we have, even though it isn't a good one.
I get into this a bit in an above comment, but you're making a critical mistake when you assume that Stark must be guilty. Yes, it's true that it's very difficult to envision an explanation for the known facts that doesn't involve foul play. But it's equally difficult to construct a narrative where Stark murders Branning. For instance, Stark was 5'2". I can't find any information about how large a man Branning was, but even in the unlikely event that he was smaller than Stark, he'd have to be significantly smaller for Stark to be able to manhandle him; otherwise it's a fair fight. So it's presumed that Stark would have to have some kind of weapon. But if he had a weapon, why didn't he kill Branning with it? And how did such a small man kill Branning at all without use of a weapon, all while managing to avoid any cuts, bruises, broken bones, or other signs of obvious injury?
Even if he had a gun, how was Stark able to enter a Wawa and buy stuff over the counter without running the risk of his hostage escaping? This is a Wawa in a resort area around 9 pm on a Friday. Not typically a deserted location, even in October. For that matter, why didn't Branning escape when they stopped for gas earlier in the evening? This isn't a problem, of course, if Branning is dead, but then he has a much bigger problem of going to a Wawa with a dead body in the back of an SUV, and then driving back to Philadelphia with it, and then on to Baltimore to dump it. If we assume Branning was alive this whole time, the question arises why he was still alive. If Stark had always intended to kill him, it would make more sense to do it in the Jersey Pine Barrens than to go back to Philadelphia, and then to exurban Baltimore.
You know what also makes sense? That this whole thing was a drug deal gone bad. It's easy to look into the accused's background, but did you ever consider looking into the victim's? Maybe he has some dirty laundry that isn't being aired out of respect for the dead, or maybe he had a secret life his family didn't know about. Or maybe he was just naive and thought he was doing a guy a favor. But who drives from Philadelphia to Cape May on a Friday night, stays for an hour, then turns around and heads back? To one of the worst areas in the city? Suppose Stark tells Branning that he needs a ride to Cape May and that there's something in it for him. Things go fine in Cape May but turn ugly when they get back to Philadelphia. Maybe the guys Stark is working for take exception to the presence of an outsider, get spooked, and decide that he can't talk. They take him to Baltimore to get rid of him, and Stark drives his car to DC because it's the closest city that hasn't been involved thus far. From there he somehow gets to Detroit, where he's finally far enough away to feel safe.
Of course this is ridiculous, but it has the advantage of having fewer obvious plot holes than the theory that Stark lied in wait to ambush Brannin so he could steal $500 and a tank of gas and take an unnecessary trip to Cape May.
Another possibility is that they went out for beers or w/e, Branning had a heart attack or otherwise dropped dead, and Stark decided to loot the car/phone/corpse and drive away from his shitty life. That'd be illegal, obviously, but not murder (since you're a lawyer: is stealing a corpse kidnapping?).
The Maryland autopsy actually noted that his coronary artery had 50-percent occlusion, which was unlikely to be the cause of death.
Abuse of corpse (which he was charged with and convicted of; I just omitted it from my summary in light of the more major charges)
'Crack bender' strikes me as more likely than 'out for beers' considering these guys' bios -- which could be a bad combo with heart disease?
The Maryland autopsy's toxicology test found "a small amount" of alcohol but no drugs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link