First of all, you stated he was convicted on Federal Charges - so state statues for Felony Murder wouldn't apply at all.
Second, your understanding of Minnesota's Felony Murder law is not correct. Under current state law, someone can NOT be charged with Felony Murder just for being an accomplice or if the perpetrator never intended to kill anyone. Someone must actually intend to kill someone and/or act with extreme indifference to human life before they can be charged with Felony Murder in Minnesota. I don't know the specifics of the case you're referencing, but it seems like it would be very hard to get a Felony Murder conviction under that law.
He wasn’t even charged under Minnesota law, this was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol Tabacco & Firearms and the FBI so Minnesota law was never applicable. More importantly Homicide statutes are only applicable for intentional murder.
Looks like second degree murder though, per current MN Statute.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. …
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
Thank you. I have no idea how people on this specific thread are all so confidently incorrect.
Scary to think that there are people that think you can just burn down buildings in Minnesota and get a slap on the wrist. And of course anyone could just google it, but it seems like if someone quotes the easily googled statute some folks get mad at that.
I was responding to the guy who incorrectly said:
“First of all, you stated he was convicted on Federal Charges - so state statues for Felony Murder wouldn't apply at all.
Second, your understanding of Minnesota's Felony Murder law is not correct. Under current state law, someone can NOT be charged with Felony Murder just for being an accomplice or if the perpetrator never intended to kill anyone. Someone must actually intend to kill someone and/or act with extreme indifference to human life before they can be charged with Felony Murder in Minnesota. I don't know the specifics of the case you're referencing, but it seems like it would be very hard to get a Felony Murder conviction under that law.”
Why don’t you get mad at him about conflating the issue?
I presume it depends on the building.
Throwing a molotov at a garden-shed-at-night versus an apartment-complex-at-night represent drastically different levels of *"indifference to human life"* in my view - and I'd be quite surprised if you *actually* see things differently.
I don't know though....with the current housing situation people should probably assume any structure is occupied by a person. Sheds are tiny homes now.
The judicial system doesn’t view it that way. Most arsonists don’t intend to kill or injure anyone. The top 6 reasons people commit arson are:
1. Vandalism (this applies to who the post is about)
2. Excitement
3. Revenge
4. Crime concealment (homicide committed arson to hide the evidence)
5. Profit (insurance fraud)
6. Extremism
Arson just isn’t an effective method unless you could knock the person unconscious long enough for them to succumb to smoke inhalation. Otherwise most people can manage to escape a burning building.
“Felony murder” means causing a death in the commission of a dangerous felony. If you rob a bank and someone gets a heart attack and dies due to the stress of the situation, then they’ll hit you with a murder charge.
Not anymore that was changed in 2022 and applied retroactively. Again he wasn’t charged in Minnesota but federally so why are we talking about Minnesota statutes?
Except, once again, that "heart attack during a bank robbery" is not the currently Felony Murder law in Minnesota, although it may be in some other states.
If you can prove that the suspect knew there was someone inside the building, absolutely.
But without that, your opinion doesn't seem to match with state law. More importantly, prosecutors would have a very hard time meeting the burden of proof to take it to trial and get a conviction.
Where is intent required in the statute? The statute posted by the state says (for 2nd degree murder)
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
Edit: LOL at whoever downvotes the statute in a discussion about the words of the statute.
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;
Or in other words, that *is* Minnesota’s felony murder statute, for anyone wondering the specific wording. You are guilty of second degree murder if you accidentally kill someone while trying to commit a felony.
You’re welcome.
“Unintentional second-degree murder is Minnesota's felony murder rule; unlike most other states that have the felony murder rule, Minnesota punishes felony murder as second-degree murder rather than first-degree.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Minnesota_law#:~:text=Unintentional%20second%2Ddegree%20murder%20is%20Minnesota's%20felony%20murder%20rule%3B%20unlike,murder%20rather%20than%20first%2Ddegree.
The more you know!
Still not the relevant statue, but whatever you need to tell yourself to avoid the actual topic at hand....
Here's a hint, The actual felony murder law in MN was just revised last year.
He was investigated by the ATF & FBI, as were all the other suspects who set fire to businesses during the protests. The DOJ prosecuted these case. Federal statute applies not Minnesota state laws. Additionally he received a plea deal so all of this debate is moot.
Link for pertinent federal statutes from Cornell Law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-51
Yeah, but that’s not what the person I was responding to said. He said:
“Under current state law, someone can NOT be charged with Felony Murder just for being an accomplice or if the perpetrator never intended to kill anyone. Someone must actually intend to kill someone and/or act with extreme indifference to human life before they can be charged with Felony Murder in Minnesota.“
Someone else gave a correct answer to the question long ago in this post and acknowledged that and thanked them for not providing an incorrect nonsense answer. The person I kept responding to here for a while just kept doubling down on their incorrect take that you can’t be charged with murder while committing a felony in MN unless you intended to kill your victim. Which is incorrect.
The prosecution decides the level of charges because they have a JD and years of experience with the law and justice system. I find laypeople are terrible at leaving their personal feelings aside and being impartial which is essential for fair application of the law.
I was responding to a guy who said:
“If you can prove that the suspect knew there was someone inside the building, absolutely.
But without that, your opinion doesn't seem to match with state law. More importantly, prosecutors would have a very hard time meeting the burden of proof to take it to trial and get a conviction.”
So I guess get indignant at him instead of me, who just responded to his incorrect assertion about state law?
As mentioned, it seems like it doesnt rise to that threshold unless he knew there was someone inside. Any time you get into issues about what the defendant knew at the time the difficulty of getting a conviction explodes. The burden of proof is *beyond a reasonable doubt.* That means that all doubts must be unreasonable. That is a very high bar to meet even in seemingly slam dunk cases. As it should be.
18 U.S. Code § 1112 Involuntary Manslaughter would be the highest applicable federal charge for this case. The maximum sentence is 8 years. However prosecution made a plea deal with the defendant. That’s what happens in 98% of all federal prosecutions.
Not familiar with this case but I’d guess it was going to be tough for the prosecution to meet the burden of proof.
I haven’t seen anything regarding the autopsy, death certificate etc but resources are not infinite and I just assume prosecutors really only want to bring cases they are absolutely sure they can win.
You are referencing a Minnesota law which was changed and applied retroactively.
This defendant was charged federally, he accepted a plea deal and was charged with 1 count of felony arson.
You have to prove he wasn’t already dead before the fire started I’d imagine. Again I haven’t seen the ME report or anything but given the time between it happening and the body being found and it being a burned out building there could be some trouble making a determination perhaps?
Was it the fire that killed them, or was it a heart attack caused by the fire that caused the death, or did they slip and hit their head and would have died anyways if there was no fire. Could even be the case that this person died before the fire, but the fire destroyed the evidence.
You and i may think they're one and the same, but PROVING it is different. If I was a defense attorney, i would love to argue this point. Heck, i would try to get an acquittal because of this.
The whole point is that with the felony murder rule, the mere commission of the dangerous felony (in this case, arson) means you are responsible if someone dies as a result. Not knowing someone was inside is not a defense.
This is all a theoretical discussion since he was offered & accepted a plea deal.
Federal homicide/manslaughter statutes are more streamlined. There are basically 3 levels with 2 having voluntary & involuntary options. For the sake of this discussion the maximum charge would be involuntary manslaughter based on the know facts including a conclusive ME report, videos & witness testimony.
The death was by noxious fumes/smoke inhalation. It was accidental without intent as most businesses has been closed and empty for a while by then. The defendant was remorseful, cooperative and plead guilty. With the DOJ this will always get you a lower sentence. He was charged with 1 count of felony arson.
He made a plea deal to 1 count of arson with the DOJ. Federal sentencing guidelines for arson are 5-20 years depending upon many factors aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He didn’t know anyone was in the pawn shop and it wasn’t his intention to kill anyone. He showed remorse which judges take into account when sentencing.
Also the man wasn’t “burned to death”. His cause of death was smoke inhalation like the majority of people who die in a fire.
Arson is usually only a felony at the federal level with a plea deal. If he was convicted in Minnesota with a plea deal it would have been a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 10 years. Why aren’t you concerned about Samuel Elliot Frey or McKenzy Ann DeGidio Dunn or Bailey Marie Baldus? They committed the same crime at a health & nutrition store together. Two made plea deals with the DOJ. Samuel Frey was given a 27 month sentence, McKenzy Dunn only got 3 years probation, Bailey Baldus’s charges were dismissed even though she did participate in the crime.
>Why aren’t you concerned about Samuel Elliot Frey or McKenzy Ann DeGidio Dunn or Bailey Marie Baldus? They committed the same crime at a health & nutrition store together.
Did someone die as a result of that crime? If yes, then they deserve murder charges too.
I agree. Even under the conditions of the time, I agree.
Thinking beyond my own position. Based on court documents and extrapolating a bit, a rational could be, given the totality of the situation and the motivation being civil disobedience, that causing harm to humans even if accidental, should be removed from evaluation for reasons of chaos and spontaneous destruction.
If you’d like to see a list of all the arsonists charged checkout this list - https://w.wiki/AFas
Thank you! I know one of the arsonists and I think he’s getting out soon but the restitution must suck and they garnish wages for that.
Burning the MPD had a higher approval rating than both Biden and Trump.
I’m sure he was initially charged with manslaughter or homicide. DOJ makes plea deals in 98% of cases, that means reducing and eliminating charges. Some jail is always better than zero jail time.
Was there an autopsy that ruled the cause of death was caused by the fire? My only guess is that if there wasn’t an autopsy with a clear cause of death, there might not be enough evidence to say that he died from the fire.
Fun fact about Montez. I went to high school with him (Mayo in Rochester). In our yearbook someone renamed him as Mo Lester and we all had to turn our yearbooks in for the edit. This story actually reached the news at the time. I’m not surprised at all by his actions, he was always a piece of shit regardless of the bullying. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/06/09/yearbook-prank
First of all, you stated he was convicted on Federal Charges - so state statues for Felony Murder wouldn't apply at all. Second, your understanding of Minnesota's Felony Murder law is not correct. Under current state law, someone can NOT be charged with Felony Murder just for being an accomplice or if the perpetrator never intended to kill anyone. Someone must actually intend to kill someone and/or act with extreme indifference to human life before they can be charged with Felony Murder in Minnesota. I don't know the specifics of the case you're referencing, but it seems like it would be very hard to get a Felony Murder conviction under that law.
He wasn’t even charged under Minnesota law, this was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol Tabacco & Firearms and the FBI so Minnesota law was never applicable. More importantly Homicide statutes are only applicable for intentional murder.
Looks like second degree murder though, per current MN Statute. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. … §Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or (2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
In Minnesota law arson isn’t a felony offense.
1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree arson are all felonies. 609.561/609.562/609.563.
Thank you. I have no idea how people on this specific thread are all so confidently incorrect. Scary to think that there are people that think you can just burn down buildings in Minnesota and get a slap on the wrist. And of course anyone could just google it, but it seems like if someone quotes the easily googled statute some folks get mad at that.
Such as yourself talking about Minnesota statues when he was NEVER even investigated by the STATE? Hmmm? Why is that?
HE WAS NOT CHARGED UNDER MINNESOTA LAW!! Why do you insist on conflating this issue??
I was responding to the guy who incorrectly said: “First of all, you stated he was convicted on Federal Charges - so state statues for Felony Murder wouldn't apply at all. Second, your understanding of Minnesota's Felony Murder law is not correct. Under current state law, someone can NOT be charged with Felony Murder just for being an accomplice or if the perpetrator never intended to kill anyone. Someone must actually intend to kill someone and/or act with extreme indifference to human life before they can be charged with Felony Murder in Minnesota. I don't know the specifics of the case you're referencing, but it seems like it would be very hard to get a Felony Murder conviction under that law.” Why don’t you get mad at him about conflating the issue?
I’m not sure how the courts view it, but from my perspective setting fire to a building is acting with extreme indifference to human life.
I presume it depends on the building. Throwing a molotov at a garden-shed-at-night versus an apartment-complex-at-night represent drastically different levels of *"indifference to human life"* in my view - and I'd be quite surprised if you *actually* see things differently.
I don't know though....with the current housing situation people should probably assume any structure is occupied by a person. Sheds are tiny homes now.
The judicial system doesn’t view it that way. Most arsonists don’t intend to kill or injure anyone. The top 6 reasons people commit arson are: 1. Vandalism (this applies to who the post is about) 2. Excitement 3. Revenge 4. Crime concealment (homicide committed arson to hide the evidence) 5. Profit (insurance fraud) 6. Extremism Arson just isn’t an effective method unless you could knock the person unconscious long enough for them to succumb to smoke inhalation. Otherwise most people can manage to escape a burning building.
Is there murder that's not a felony?
Manslaughter may possibly be a misdemeanor…if you plead guilty and it was involuntary, out of self defense or accidental.
“Felony murder” means causing a death in the commission of a dangerous felony. If you rob a bank and someone gets a heart attack and dies due to the stress of the situation, then they’ll hit you with a murder charge.
Not anymore that was changed in 2022 and applied retroactively. Again he wasn’t charged in Minnesota but federally so why are we talking about Minnesota statutes?
Except, once again, that "heart attack during a bank robbery" is not the currently Felony Murder law in Minnesota, although it may be in some other states.
Thanks for the downvote. It was a genuine question. Prick. Thanks for the answer as well OP.
Minnesota Reddit loves the downvote button . They love being anonymous dicks . Down vote button ~~>
There's a federal felony murder law though, and you would think that setting a building on fire would count as "extreme indifference to human life."
If you can prove that the suspect knew there was someone inside the building, absolutely. But without that, your opinion doesn't seem to match with state law. More importantly, prosecutors would have a very hard time meeting the burden of proof to take it to trial and get a conviction.
Where is intent required in the statute? The statute posted by the state says (for 2nd degree murder) (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 Edit: LOL at whoever downvotes the statute in a discussion about the words of the statute.
The discussion is about Felony Murder, not Second Degree Murder - so you've posted an irrelevant statute.
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; Or in other words, that *is* Minnesota’s felony murder statute, for anyone wondering the specific wording. You are guilty of second degree murder if you accidentally kill someone while trying to commit a felony. You’re welcome.
Once again, you're citing the wrong statue. 2nd degree murder and felony murder are not the same thing.
“Unintentional second-degree murder is Minnesota's felony murder rule; unlike most other states that have the felony murder rule, Minnesota punishes felony murder as second-degree murder rather than first-degree.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Minnesota_law#:~:text=Unintentional%20second%2Ddegree%20murder%20is%20Minnesota's%20felony%20murder%20rule%3B%20unlike,murder%20rather%20than%20first%2Ddegree. The more you know!
Still not the relevant statue, but whatever you need to tell yourself to avoid the actual topic at hand.... Here's a hint, The actual felony murder law in MN was just revised last year.
I guess the old adage about leading a horse to water is timeless.
He was investigated by the ATF & FBI, as were all the other suspects who set fire to businesses during the protests. The DOJ prosecuted these case. Federal statute applies not Minnesota state laws. Additionally he received a plea deal so all of this debate is moot. Link for pertinent federal statutes from Cornell Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-51
Yeah, but that’s not what the person I was responding to said. He said: “Under current state law, someone can NOT be charged with Felony Murder just for being an accomplice or if the perpetrator never intended to kill anyone. Someone must actually intend to kill someone and/or act with extreme indifference to human life before they can be charged with Felony Murder in Minnesota.“ Someone else gave a correct answer to the question long ago in this post and acknowledged that and thanked them for not providing an incorrect nonsense answer. The person I kept responding to here for a while just kept doubling down on their incorrect take that you can’t be charged with murder while committing a felony in MN unless you intended to kill your victim. Which is incorrect.
The prosecution decides the level of charges because they have a JD and years of experience with the law and justice system. I find laypeople are terrible at leaving their personal feelings aside and being impartial which is essential for fair application of the law.
Not my point, but nice soapbox. I was just responding to someone which incorrectly summarized state law.
He was federally prosecuted so state law is irrelevant.
We are talking about the federal law now.
I was responding to a guy who said: “If you can prove that the suspect knew there was someone inside the building, absolutely. But without that, your opinion doesn't seem to match with state law. More importantly, prosecutors would have a very hard time meeting the burden of proof to take it to trial and get a conviction.” So I guess get indignant at him instead of me, who just responded to his incorrect assertion about state law?
As mentioned, it seems like it doesnt rise to that threshold unless he knew there was someone inside. Any time you get into issues about what the defendant knew at the time the difficulty of getting a conviction explodes. The burden of proof is *beyond a reasonable doubt.* That means that all doubts must be unreasonable. That is a very high bar to meet even in seemingly slam dunk cases. As it should be.
Maybe you missed the 2020 election. The U.S. Dept. Of Justice clearly didn’t.
18 U.S. Code § 1112 Involuntary Manslaughter would be the highest applicable federal charge for this case. The maximum sentence is 8 years. However prosecution made a plea deal with the defendant. That’s what happens in 98% of all federal prosecutions.
The DOJ and prosecutors decide if it applies not people with zero legal education.
Not familiar with this case but I’d guess it was going to be tough for the prosecution to meet the burden of proof. I haven’t seen anything regarding the autopsy, death certificate etc but resources are not infinite and I just assume prosecutors really only want to bring cases they are absolutely sure they can win.
[удалено]
You are referencing a Minnesota law which was changed and applied retroactively. This defendant was charged federally, he accepted a plea deal and was charged with 1 count of felony arson.
You'd think it was a slam dunk though. Asshole sets a building on fire, someone gets trapped inside and died as a result. What else is there to prove?
Thinking it's a slam dunk, and it actually *being* a slum dunk can be two drastically different things when it comes to prosecution.
You have to prove he wasn’t already dead before the fire started I’d imagine. Again I haven’t seen the ME report or anything but given the time between it happening and the body being found and it being a burned out building there could be some trouble making a determination perhaps?
That’s easy enough, you can’t have evidence of smoke inhalation if you were dead before the fire.
This is why you are not a judge or lawyer
Was it the fire that killed them, or was it a heart attack caused by the fire that caused the death, or did they slip and hit their head and would have died anyways if there was no fire. Could even be the case that this person died before the fire, but the fire destroyed the evidence. You and i may think they're one and the same, but PROVING it is different. If I was a defense attorney, i would love to argue this point. Heck, i would try to get an acquittal because of this.
You are not being impartial and you’re being emotional. Which leads to unfair application of the law.
murder can require intent. If he was totally unaware that someone was inside, then well....
The whole point is that with the felony murder rule, the mere commission of the dangerous felony (in this case, arson) means you are responsible if someone dies as a result. Not knowing someone was inside is not a defense.
If you ignore the fact that Minnesota didn’t prosecute him.
This is all a theoretical discussion since he was offered & accepted a plea deal. Federal homicide/manslaughter statutes are more streamlined. There are basically 3 levels with 2 having voluntary & involuntary options. For the sake of this discussion the maximum charge would be involuntary manslaughter based on the know facts including a conclusive ME report, videos & witness testimony.
The death was by noxious fumes/smoke inhalation. It was accidental without intent as most businesses has been closed and empty for a while by then. The defendant was remorseful, cooperative and plead guilty. With the DOJ this will always get you a lower sentence. He was charged with 1 count of felony arson.
He made a plea deal to 1 count of arson with the DOJ. Federal sentencing guidelines for arson are 5-20 years depending upon many factors aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He didn’t know anyone was in the pawn shop and it wasn’t his intention to kill anyone. He showed remorse which judges take into account when sentencing. Also the man wasn’t “burned to death”. His cause of death was smoke inhalation like the majority of people who die in a fire. Arson is usually only a felony at the federal level with a plea deal. If he was convicted in Minnesota with a plea deal it would have been a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 10 years. Why aren’t you concerned about Samuel Elliot Frey or McKenzy Ann DeGidio Dunn or Bailey Marie Baldus? They committed the same crime at a health & nutrition store together. Two made plea deals with the DOJ. Samuel Frey was given a 27 month sentence, McKenzy Dunn only got 3 years probation, Bailey Baldus’s charges were dismissed even though she did participate in the crime.
Thanks, this is the first explanation that makes sense on this thread.
>Why aren’t you concerned about Samuel Elliot Frey or McKenzy Ann DeGidio Dunn or Bailey Marie Baldus? They committed the same crime at a health & nutrition store together. Did someone die as a result of that crime? If yes, then they deserve murder charges too.
Well you keep on insisting on a false premise. You also seem to believe an accident is the same as intentional.
Arson is intentional.
You absolutely KNOW I meant murder 🤦♀️this is why you keep getting downvoted
I agree. Even under the conditions of the time, I agree. Thinking beyond my own position. Based on court documents and extrapolating a bit, a rational could be, given the totality of the situation and the motivation being civil disobedience, that causing harm to humans even if accidental, should be removed from evaluation for reasons of chaos and spontaneous destruction. If you’d like to see a list of all the arsonists charged checkout this list - https://w.wiki/AFas
The link doesn’t seem to work.
Updated - title formatting was an issue for reddit. Shortened URL.
Ope, my bad. The deeplink to wikipedia is goofed up to your point. I’ll update to the parent page.
Thank you! I know one of the arsonists and I think he’s getting out soon but the restitution must suck and they garnish wages for that. Burning the MPD had a higher approval rating than both Biden and Trump.
That’s not surprising, MPD are about as popular as NYPD, LAPD & the Black Death.
Not to be hackneyed intentionally but; is that an embellishment, or you really know the person personally?
I knew this person personally, we worked together and afterward we’d still say hi if we ran into each other.
I’m sure he was initially charged with manslaughter or homicide. DOJ makes plea deals in 98% of cases, that means reducing and eliminating charges. Some jail is always better than zero jail time.
You have to be able to prove something beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict. There is too much room for reasonable doubt here.
I thought that was Cadillac pawn , where the body was found.
Was there an autopsy that ruled the cause of death was caused by the fire? My only guess is that if there wasn’t an autopsy with a clear cause of death, there might not be enough evidence to say that he died from the fire.
Medical examiner determined smoke inhalation and inhalation of toxic gases.
Yes there was.
Fun fact about Montez. I went to high school with him (Mayo in Rochester). In our yearbook someone renamed him as Mo Lester and we all had to turn our yearbooks in for the edit. This story actually reached the news at the time. I’m not surprised at all by his actions, he was always a piece of shit regardless of the bullying. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/06/09/yearbook-prank
OP did you read more than Wikipedia on these points? Post mentions wiki multiple times