Talk:U.S. jury deliberates immigrant smuggler case

Jurisdiction

Is this case being tried in federal or state court? This may have a large impact on the death-penalty issue in the case. - Amgine 19:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of this story's sources references jurisdiction. I checked a few other news articles and again, none of them mentions jurisdiction in the case either.

Since it is a convention that a reporter would note a "federal court" proceeding in a story, I can only assume this is a "state court" proceeding. In sticking with this convention, I won't make any change to the article. -edw 02:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your "death penalty" assertion needs to be verified. Paulrevere2005 05:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The trial is being conducted by US District court Judge Vanessa Gilmore. Whenever you see the words US District, it's a federal case. — DV 06:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also added a third source to confirm that this is indeed a federal death penalty case. — DV 06:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe the third source is confirmation, I believe the third source added by DV is totally inaccurate against the weight of all other sources I looked into. The LA Times story is the only inconsistent member of the bunch of reporting on this. -edw 07:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All of the sources are quite clear that US District court Judge Vanessa Gilmore is presiding over the case. Are you disputing that this is a federal case?

I'll go ahead and add another source from the local Houston Chronicle that also clearly states that, "Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty". — DV 07:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just re-read all four of the cited sources, and all four of them consistently reference US District Court Judge Vanessa Gilmore, showing that this is a federal case, and all four of them point out that this is a death penalty case. I'm not sure why edw thinks these sources don't contain this information.

Edw, if you can find a fifth source that disputes the accuracy of the cited reporting, please provide a link. — DV 07:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, connection trouble. "District" court. Nope, I have no understanding to explain that. Amgine wonders whether this is federal or state court. Clearly I did not regard "district" court as being associated with "federal" court. I may need schooled. -edw 08:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. This article on United States district court contains more than you'd ever want to know on the subject. This article on District courts in general makes note of the US prefix as a means of distinguishing federal from state courts. — DV 08:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I read the This article on District courts in general and it contains ambiguity as to the jurisdiction question. Knowing Texas as the "outlaw state," I still maintain this is a State court issue. And it is breaking news to which I will turn my attention.

Huh? You do realize that Texas is part of the United States?

OK, well if you refuse to believe this is a federal case, here is irrefutable proof:

• The case is called "United States of America v. Tyrone Williams".

• A United States Magistrate Judge signed the filing.

• Steven Greenwell, an agent of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement swore out an affidavit.

• The case is for a violation of Title 8 and 18 of the United States Code, Section 1324.

• One of the captions reads, "Truck driver Tyrone Williams listens to testimony at the federal courthouse in Houston."

• Here is the federal criminal complaint on FindLaw.

Hopefully the above pieces of information should be enough for you to now believe that this is a federal case. — DV 10:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you are a magician! Now maybe I will take another look at this story -edw 18:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

This article was only on the "in development" list for 48 minutes. This is a collaborative process Edw.

• Edw's POV on illegal immigration is being preached in this article.Edw's comments on the talk page of "U.S. cracks down on Latin American gangs" made it clear what his POV is on illegal immigration; e.g equating it with "freedom" etc. Here are a view of his quotes;

• "It hardly seems necessary to discuss "freedom" in terms of illegal immigration when examples abound. Duh -> don't make me think about it......" edw 19:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "shake vigorously with hatred of US immigration policy

and viola!, you get fear mongering."

• This article is obviously trying to take a tragedy and expand it to a general sympathy for illegal immigrants as illustrated by the last line, an out of context partial quote “There was this deliberate, cruel and evil lack of concern for these people…”.

Rewrite with less POV please. Paulrevere2005 05:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Smart cookie Paulrevere2005. -edw 07:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• sorry edw ; I was in a bad mood;its gone now. Paulrevere2005 17:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:-} glad! I often wish I could say it 'just so'.... but the words fail me. -edw 18:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editorial cleanup needed e.g."Williams had been singled out, they maintain, because grief caused by the incident led prosecutors to focus its attention on one out of the others involved"

So lets see, he was singled out because prosecuters were focusing its(sic) attention on someone else? This babble is bordering on patent nonsense. Paulrevere2005 05:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it better now? — DV 06:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You bet; its just fine now; next time I'll try to fix it myself. Paulrevere2005 06:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)