Robert king trial

As a former prosecutor with extensive trial experience, Robert King knows exactly how to tailor a plan of action for your case and go on the offensive. Attorney Robert King has established King Law as one of the leading personal injury and criminal defense law firms in New York. King decided to transition to private practice as a Rochester criminal defense attorney.

As Mr. Every day, people lie to the police and lie on the witness stand. Sometimes the liars are the police themselves. I was fortunate to know some great defense attorneys when I was a prosecutor and eventually became very jealous of their freedom to go to war for one person, their client. From car accidents and slip and fall to more complex situations involving liability for an injury, the team at King Law approach every case with a sincere commitment to helping make their clients whole so that they can move on in their lives.

Every personal injury or criminal defense lawyer will tell you that they are the best lawyer for your case, but we prefer to let our clients to the talking:.

On February 24, , King sent a handwritten motion to the court to obtain a trial date and dismiss counsel. In the motion he stated that he "withdraws in full In response, the trial court held a hearing, during which King's counsel questioned King's competence to decide whether to proceed pro se.

The court ordered an examination by Dr. Parvaresh, who opined that King was not competent at that time, but if he began taking his medication, his competence should be reevaluated in seven to ten days.

The court ordered additional examinations. In April , King testified at the trial of James Salter, as agreed under the terms of the plea agreement. On May 31, , the trial court held a hearing to determine whether King was competent to assist his own defense. Evidence was presented by both sides regarding King's psychological fitness, and the trial court found that King "understands the nature of the proceedings and that he is able to assist and co-operate with counsel and is able to participate in his defense.

There was testimony that King had studied psychology and completed law school, and that he would feign mental illness to manipulate the proceedings in his case. King's counsel advised the court that King had gone back on his medication and was able to understand the proceedings and assist counsel, so he did not wish to call witnesses and requested that the court make its ruling based upon the medical reports.

King would not speak in court so that the court could make an independent judgment, so the state, concerned about the adequacy of the record, called medical witnesses anyway, and King's attorney cross-examined. The court ruled that King was competent to stand trial, and that ruling is not challenged in this appeal. Then the court asked counsel if a trial date should be set. King, through counsel, advised the court that a trial date should be set, and that King was withdrawing his motion to proceed pro se:.

Again he does not wish, for whatever reason may be, to make any representations to the Court. But he has authorized me to do so. And we are prepared to set a trial date in this case.

I would point out to the Court that Mr. King tacitly is withdrawing his motion to proceed pro se, which puts me back in the position of being his attorney at this time. Eglitis address the trial, scheduling the trial. My reaction, I would like to mention to the Court, is that the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty to this charge of Aggravated Murder. Under our agreement that we have entered into with the defendant, we have offered him an opportunity, pursuant to our agreement, to plead guilty to the charge of Murder with certain understandings.

It's my understanding that by asking for a trial date at this time he is seeking to withdraw that plea agreement. And if that is the case, we want that understood right now. Miller, you better file a formal motion to that effect So if I were you, I would file a formal motion to not be bound by the plea agreement, that it be held for naught, no force and effect. King's attorney did not contradict the government's "understanding that by asking for a trial date at this time he is seeking to withdraw that plea agreement.

The state then filed a motion for the court to enter a finding that King rescinded the plea agreement. A hearing was held on July 9, One of King's attorneys explained that "we are still trying to work out the custody arrangement to the State of Alabama.

I feel that may have some bearing on what Mr. King decides to do here. The State was at that time still willing to abide by the terms of the plea agreement:. The State would like to know for certain, we would like to start preparing for trial. And even the preparations for trial are exceedingly expensive. As the court may know, this case involves largely out-of-state witnesses. It's a lengthy and expensive procedure to procure their attendance and we would like not to have to wait until any longer to begin that.

We, of course, would like not to begin it if, in fact, we know that Mr. King is going to enter his plea of guilty and follow the plea agreement. The judge, noticing the offer to proceed according to the plea agreement, asked for clarification from the state of its position, obtained it, and entered a finding that the state was no longer bound by the plea agreement:. But I believe the option of that would then be with us. King has indicated to this Court that he wants a trial date, that he doesn't want to have anything to do with the plea agreement and would like the Court to enter the order to that effect.

That would in essence leave the option with the State rather than with Mr. The court then issued an order "relieving the State from any obligation that was originally involved in the plea agreement.

King's trial was scheduled to begin on August 20, A month later, twelve days before trial, King filed a motion to compel specific performance of the plea agreement. He argued that he had substantially complied with his obligations under the agreement, so the state should accept a plea to the lesser charge of murder, rather than aggravated murder as charged, and he should receive the sentence originally agreed upon.

At a hearing on the motion, King's attorney acknowledged that King had, after testifying against Salter, advised the court that he wanted to go to trial rather than proceed with the plea agreement, but claimed that at the time, King had not been taking his medication.

The state's attorney pointed out that trial had now been delayed a year, four witnesses had disappeared, and the witnesses who would testify would have another year added to the time for memory to fade, and also pointed out King's apparent competence since the time the court had made the competency determination. The trial judge denied King's motion, stating "I think it's mainly whether or not the State has been prejudiced by the failure of the defendant to follow the plea agreement, and I find they have been.

He noted the delay, the need to try to locate the witnesses again, and that this was the second or third time the state had to prepare the case for trial. The judge specifically found that King made an informed decision and knew what he was doing when he withdrew from the plea agreement. King was convicted at a jury trial of aggravated murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a thirty year mandatory minimum.

King appealed, and exhausted his remedies in state court. See State v. King, 84 Or. He then filed for habeas relief in federal court pursuant to 28 U. He alleged, inter alia, that the state court prosecution should have been barred by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and that the State of Oregon violated his right to due process by failing to perform its obligations under the plea agreement.

These two issues are the subject of this appeal. We review de novo the district court's denial of habeas relief. Adams v. Peterson, F. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, and state court findings of fact are entitled to a presumption of correctness.

Burns, F. To overcome the presumption of correctness, "the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.

The state court specifically held that King was competent when he rescinded the plea agreement. See King, P. Brewer v. Lewis, F. King has not presented evidence that he was incompetent at the time of the court's ruling sufficient to establish by convincing evidence that the state court's determination was erroneous.

At the hearing to determine competency, both sides presented substantial evidence to support their positions. The state court's conclusion that King was competent is supported by the record, and is thus entitled to deference. The state court also found that King rescinded the plea agreement by requesting a trial date and by failing to comply with the plea agreement.

The Court of Appeals of Oregon stated that this "finding is supported by the evidence in the record and we are bound by it. The agreement required three acts by King, and one by the State of Oregon.

King would 1 provide information, 2 testify, and 3 plead guilty to murder. The state would accept the plea to murder, rather than aggravated murder, and agree to a ten year mandatory minimum before eligibility for parole and a sentence concurrent with King's Washington sentence.

This was a bilateral contract, in which the state promised to do one thing, if King did three. King did two, then announced his intention not to proceed further. The state changed its position in reliance on King's announced intention to go to trial. King had repeated opportunities to correct the state's misunderstanding, if it was a misunderstanding, that he would go to trial, not plead guilty. There was no misunderstanding, though, and King claims none.

He just wanted something more than he had bargained for, incarceration in his home state of Alabama, instead of in Oregon. In United States v. Osif, F. Here, King rescinded the plea agreement, and thus it was no longer in force or available for him to accept. Although King did not initially reject the government's offer of the plea agreement, he withdrew his acceptance. Thus, the government had no obligation to reoffer the original plea agreement. Adamson, U. This independent assessment, however, proceeds without second-guessing the effect of the breach and is not a license to substitute a federal interpretation of the terms of the plea agreement for a reasonable state interpretation.

The state court decided that King had rescinded his agreement, and that the state had been prejudiced by his failure to abide by the agreement, so he was not entitled to specific performance. King, P. The factual findings of intentional rescission, competence, and prejudice to the state, are entitled to the presumption of correctness. The determination falls well within the "broad bounds of reasonableness.

His argument appears to be that the state court determination fell outside the "broad bounds of reasonableness," because King had performed so much of his agreement that it violated his right to due process of law not to command specific performance against the state. We reject the proposition that the Oregon state determination fell outside the "broad bounds of reasonableness.

He said he would not plead guilty unless he got more than he had bargained for--he wanted Alabama incarceration, in addition to ten year parole eligibility and concurrent sentences. His repudiation was not a casual remark taken advantage of by a prosecutor eager to escape performance--he was brought into court, with counsel, and the matter was carefully reviewed in a context which gave King an opportunity to clarify his intention to adhere to the plea bargain, had that been his intention.

King's repudiation of his agreement excused the government's failure to perform its part of the bargain. A few days before trial, King offered to perform the agreement he had repudiated, that is, to nullify his repudiation. But the judge reasonably ruled that he did not have the power to impose on the government the contract he had repudiated. The July 9, hearing in open court established that the repudiation was understood by both parties as final, so King had no power subsequently to nullify it and take advantage of the repudiated agreement.

Also, the trial judge found that the government had materially changed its position in reliance on the repudiation, by engaging in expensive and burdensome pretrial preparation. Since the state court construction fell within "the broad bounds of reasonableness," we cannot engage in "second guessing the finding of breach" or substitute an independent federal interpretation which would treat King as having not breached, or as entitled to specific performance despite his breach.

Ricketts, U. Hurt in an accident? Watch some of our law firm videos and learn more about Indianapolis personal injury lawyer Rob King. Indianapolis personal injury attorney Rob King loves to provide free information.

While our website videos, content, and blogs are not considered legal advice, we do produce informative videos. Our videos and blogs are designed to provide general information about all things related to accident injuries.

Check out our newest video, more video below, or click the YouTube link above to access our full library. If you do wish to obtain free legal advice after an accident, call us now at Hurt in a car crash, injured in a major trucking accident, suffered a serious injury due to the fault of another person? Find out more about our settlements by clicking the button below. What does matter, at least in our opinion, is finding the attorney who is best for you and your legal situation.

How do you determine which law firm may be best suited to assist you with your injury case? Well, for starters, you can schedule free consultations and talk with injury attorneys. Personal injury causes plenty of hardship. From physical and emotional pain to mounting medical bills, victims and family members have many obstacles to overcome before they can move on with their lives. We empathize with what our personal injury clients are going through.

We provide comprehensive personal injury legal services to clients throughout Indianapolis and the surrounding area. For the last 22 plus years, Rob King has made a name for himself as a leading personal injury lawyer in Indianapolis, Indiana.

He has consistently fought for the rights of victims, obtaining compensation for clients who have been harmed. Whether you have been seriously injured in a car accident, truck wreck or at a construction site, we will help ensure that negligent parties are held accountable for their actions. How much do we charge for our services? In other words, we only get paid when you get paid.

Our type of fee structure is called a contingency fee arrangement, meaning that if we make a recovery for you, we will take a percentage of the recovery as our fee. But, if we do not make a recovery, the client owes us nothing for the legal services we have rendered. We strive to earn a trusting relationship with our clients through transparency , effective and honest communication , and an unparalleled desire to obtain the best results attainable.

For the aggressive representation in Indianapolis, contact us today to speak with a personal injury attorney who cares about your success at A serious injury is an overwhelming experience that can turn a life upside down.

Victims will likely face physical limitations, financial burdens, and conflicts with insurance agents while they recover, all of which can rob them of the time they need to heal.

You should NEVER give a recorded statement to any insurance companies, including your own, without first consulting an attorney. Following a collision, you should seek medical treatment immediately for any injuries received or which you think may have been sustained.

Be sure to tell the treating medical provider all symptoms and complaints you may have, no matter how big or small they are at the time. Without proper medical documentation, the complaints that you had may not be able to be presented to the adjuster for consideration during the negotiation phase of the claim. During our initial consultation, we will review your case with you and evaluate the best approach to ensure you receive maximum compensation for your injury.

Once we take on your case, we begin working on your case immediately. The initial process involves gathering information pertinent to the case including:. We make sure to keep you in the loop and help take that strain off your plate. Here are some ways we communicate with our clients:. Once you have been released by your primary physician, our team will obtain the following items.

Any and all liens such as health insurance, hospital, and medical providers will be confirmed. We send the claim adjusters and defense attorneys a demand package. Rob King Law begins settlement negotiations with either the defense attorney or claims adjuster. The insurance companies will prepare an offer, for your final acceptance or rejection, after a detailed analysis and discussion with us. If a final settlement offer is not accepted, a lawsuit will be filed with your permission and full understanding.

The significant majority of all cases settle without going to court.