WOW! FOR THE SAME KILLING, A PARDONED KENTUCKY MURDERER HAS HIS SENTENCE DOUBLED.

 Hopefully, you had the opportunity to see "Fracture," the great crime thriller starring Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling. If you did, you undoubtedly laughed at Gosling's character's ruse to get Hopkins to set him up.



Ted Crawford, a wealthy Irish aeronautical engineer, was played by Hopkins. Crawford considered himself to be a brilliant individual. Crawford assassinated his wife. Prosecutors were caught in a web of traps set by the self-proclaimed genius. Crawford was put on trial, but was found not guilty.

He grew a bit brash because he had double jeopardy protection. There was, however, a slight snag. The charge he was acquitted of was not the same as the last charge that brought the movie to a finish. We'll simply say Crawford got schooled without giving anything away about the plot.

Although he wasn't charged with the same crime twice, a Kentucky man was subjected to "Double Jeopardy" or the lack thereof under a specific provision of federal law. You can't be charged with the same offence twice in the United States, according to the law.


It's known as "Double Jeopardy" among Tommie Lee Jones fans. Patrick Baker, on the other hand, has discovered that prosecutors can utilize a few legal gimmicks to achieve actual justice. Baker was sentenced to 19 years in prison for killing a cocaine dealer, although he only spent 30 months.

Now, before you assess Donald Mills as possibly deserving of the punishment he received, you must first comprehend the circumstances behind Baker's shooting of Mills. This much is true: Mills was a narcotics dealer. Mills, on the other hand, was at his home near Stinking Creek, Kentucky.


Baker pretended to be a U.S. Marshall in order to obtain entrance to Mills' residence. Baker killed Mills and then kidnapped Mills' pregnant wife and children. He searched the house for Oxycontin pills.

Baker was charged with first-degree robbery and reckless homicide. Baker was also accused with tampering with evidence and impersonating a police officer, according to prosecutors. He was found guilty and sentenced to 19 years in a state prison in Kentucky.

Baker, it turns out, had some insider connections to Kentucky's governor's palace. Baker was pardoned by outgoing Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin after only 212 years in prison. Bevin awarded hundreds of pardons before leaving the Governor's Mansion, including one for Baker.


Baker must have felt as if he had gotten away with something. He should have enlisted a more capable defense. Baker was recently sent back to prison, this time to a federal prison, by a US District Attorney. After losing the recent election, Bevin began issuing somewhat haphazard pardons.

Many, on the other hand, were related to powerful political connections. It appears that the good governor was a little crooked. Bevin also granted clemency to a convicted sex offender whose mother happens to be the wife of a rich Kentucky road contractor.

Many of these were deemed suspect by Kentucky's Attorney General. As a result, he asked for an FBI inquiry. He had every reason to be skeptical, based on what he saw. Baker's increased sentence was discussed by Carlton S. 

( Shier, IV, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky."Baker was convicted of a bold act of violence that culminated in a murder, perpetrated while the victim's family was close," Shier claims. ) Source https://www.justice.gov/usao-edky/meet-us-attorney 

The pardon did not appear to be appropriate for the offense. Baker got more than he bargained for, much like Theodore Crawford's imaginary crime.

The principle of double jeopardy is a cornerstone of American law. It exists to safeguard the innocent or to prevent corrupt legal systems from charging someone with the same offense several times. It is not, however, a scapegoat defense strategy for committing murder.

If you are convicted, it will not exempt you from paying your duty to society. Patrick Baker's legal counsel, it appears, should have gone over that minor issue with him more extensively. He's now facing a sentence that is twice as long as the one he received the first time. Perhaps he should have just stayed quiet and served his sentence.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post