Three Wone Defendants Found Not Guilty, No Killer Named. Where's those Vincent Chin activists when you need them?

Three Wone Defendants Found Not Guilty On Charges
Hat tip to Aaron Morrissey in News on June 29, 2010 12:18 PM

The three defendants in the Robert Wone obstruction trial were declared not guilty on obstruction and tampering charges this afternoon in one of the biggest official rulings in the case to date. Joseph Price, 39, Dylan Ward, 39, and Victor Zaborsky, 44, who opted for a ruling from the bench over a jury trial, were all charged with obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence and conspiracy -- though Zaborsky and Ward were both acquitted on the evidence tampering charges halfway through the trial.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz began delivering the decision shortly before 11:30 this morning, and handed down the not guilty verdict moments ago. Leibovitz stated that Wone's murderer "was not an intruder." Leibovitz also stated that Ward and Zaborsky "didn't alter the crime scene," while Price "very likely altered" the knife used to kill Wone. But in the end, Leibovitz couldn't conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Price did so. Additionally, Leibovitz also ruled out Michael Price, Joseph's brother, as the one who murdered Wone.

Price, Ward and Zaborsky would have faced a maximum of more than 30 years in prison if they had been convicted.

UPDATE: Full copy of the verdict, after the jump.

Judge Lynn Lebovitz' Verdict - Final Order 06292010

And here's the comments


Rosslyn replied to comment from Deep


No, the prosecution did not have evidence and never should have wasted this time and money.



There was so much reasonable doubt, you could drive a truck through the holes.



The prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves and testified in ways that undermined the case (the med examiner saying the murder happened in November, uh no, and that he didn't put the knife in a bag because he didn't think of the possibility it could get contaminated before he tested it). The prosecutors tried to make up for the weakness by making this about an--ooooh--GAY relationship among--ooooh--three men!! It was a farce.



These guys might have done something, but it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is the way the system works. You don't lock someone up unless you prove it.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:48 PM [ report this ] monkeyrotica replied to comment from Rosslyn

You don't lock someone up unless you prove it.



A Bendy administration would work tirelessly to eliminate that little stumbling block.



Vote Bendy: Did He Fire Six Shots or Only Five?®



Reply
June 29, 2010 1:43 PM [ report this ] alexalexalex replied to comment from Rosslyn

Classic case of confusing "beyond reasonable doubt" with "beyond ANY doubt."



Reply
June 29, 2010 2:43 PM [ report this ] Guesty McSpanky replied to comment from alexalexalex

It could be argued that you're mistaking reasonable doubt for 'Oh, you just know they did it.'



Reply
June 29, 2010 2:58 PM [ report this ] Rosslyn replied to comment from Guesty McSpanky

that's sadly true when it comes to police and prosecutors. They "Know" so-and-so did it, so facts and evidence somehow appear to support the theory. There are a lot of wrongfully convicted folks out there on death row who can testify to that travesty and mockery of our legal system.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:03 PM [ report this ] Rosslyn replied to comment from alexalexalex

Actually, beyond a reasonable doubt means if there is any credible doubt, you cannot convict. There was more than that here. Prosecutors based a case on the knife and their own witnesses couldn't prove that up.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:01 PM [ report this ] alexalexalex replied to comment from Rosslyn

I'm sorry, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond any credible doubt," unless you are a defense attorney talking to a jury.



My biggest question is why the prosecution ever agreed to let this be decided by a judge. I think a jury would've been more likely to see this case clearly.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:07 PM [ report this ] Rosslyn replied to comment from alexalexalex

1) It is the standard the court applies, so yes, of course a defense lawyer will be arguing it.



2) The Constitution provides a right to jury trial. It is the defendants' sole discretion to waive that right or assert it. The prosecution has nothing to do with it.



And note, the defendants didn't get to pick their judge. If they had, they would have stuck with the one who heard the pretrial motions.



This judge, a former prosecutor, was installed as a result of prosecutors' motion.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:13 PM [ report this ] Entrada replied to comment from Rosslyn

>>This judge, a former prosecutor, was installed as a result of prosecutors' motion.



This just isn't true.



Reply
June 29, 2010 5:29 PM [ report this ] Rosslyn replied to comment from alexalexalex

oh, and a jury would have been required to apply the same standard. If it chose to ignore that standard and impose its own, that is reversible error.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:14 PM [ report this ] Entrada replied to comment from Rosslyn

>>The prosecutors tried to make up for the weakness by making this about an--ooooh--GAY relationship among--ooooh--three men!! It was a farce.



This was not the case at all. You seem to know very little about what actually happened.



Reply
June 29, 2010 5:38 PM [ report this ] [2]
fafou

This sucks. We all know someone knows something and no one's talking. Too bad something more couldn't have been done to find justice in this case.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:24 PM [ report this ] IMGoph replied to comment from fafou

agreed. the right verdict was handed down given the evidence, but justice has not been served for mr. wone.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:34 PM [ report this ] [3]
monkeyrotica

So if those three didn't do it, and the brother didn't do it, and an intruder didn't do it, who did it? And how much did the taxpayers have to pay to fight this case?



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:27 PM [ report this ] Lynne Venart replied to comment from monkeyrotica

Based on her conclusions, I guess at least one other person was over for their earlier bbq (or showed up later that night) and the 3 thought that person had left but he/she was still in the house and then attacked Wone?



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:35 PM [ report this ] braver replied to comment from monkeyrotica

no, the brother didn't do it, the intruder didn't do it, and the three weren't found guilty of COVERING IT UP. I think it's pretty clear who Leibowitz thinks did it.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:01 PM [ report this ] [4]
Deep

Do people really hate lawyers that much?



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:32 PM [ report this ] SomeoneStoleMyScreenNameJason replied to comment from Deep

Yes.



Reply
June 29, 2010 2:01 PM [ report this ] [5]
afm

I'm surprised by this. But the judge's findings really don't have any meaning, aside from explaining her verdict. Just because she "finds" that the brother didn't do it, it doesn't immunize him.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:33 PM [ report this ] [6]
Kev29

Well, this should clear things up



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:34 PM [ report this ] monkeyrotica replied to comment from Kev29

Well I'll certainly rest easier with my three gay lovers and their E-Stim equipment knowing that justice has been served a mickey, raped, and murdered in her sleep.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:47 PM [ report this ] [9]
Deep

Hot tub time machine killer.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:41 PM [ report this ] [12]
fortyforty

I guess this is the reason why they have civil actions.



I hope these 3 get used to living in that basement. The hurdle for civil cases is alot lower than reasonable doubt.



Reply
June 29, 2010 12:58 PM [ report this ] [13]
Over the River

Robert Wone was gay. Why would he expect to have justice in this country?



Reply
June 29, 2010 1:04 PM [ report this ] nesredep replied to comment from Over the River

? Robert Wone was not openly gay.



Also, what happens to the defendants now? Even if they have been found innocent, their reputations have been ruined. I always wonder what happens to people in these situations--can they go back to work? Will they have to move?



Reply
June 29, 2010 1:14 PM [ report this ] Over the River replied to comment from nesredep

Those are good questions and I spoke tongue-in-cheek.



Reply
June 29, 2010 3:44 PM [ report this ] [15]
iAManugget

gross. maybe they will steal something like OJ and go away for awhile. and "accidentally die" in the prison hospital



Reply
June 29, 2010 1:16 PM [ report this ] [16]
rabo k

Tomorrow's WaPO headline:



Three Gay Men Living Together in Sexual Relationship Found Not Guilty



Reply
June 29, 2010 1:17 PM [ report this ] [17]
DreadPirateRoberts

Let me guess - you're one of the junior associates on the defense. Tell your clients that they're very lucky. The prosecutors and the police have some 'splainin to do.



Reply
June 29, 2010 1:34 PM [ report this ] [20]
alexalexalex

OJ Simpson, the sequel.



I wonder if these three defendants will continue to follow the OJ mold and pen a book titled "If I Did It."





Reply
June 29, 2010 2:37 PM [ report this ] Entrada replied to comment from alexalexalex

I'm sure they're all working hard now to find the "real" killer too.



Reply
June 29, 2010 5:36 PM [ report this ]