WHO-TV Link: WHO TV - Des Moines: Heemstra Released from Prison
I am bothered by this. Sure seems like a killer is now walking the streets.
I am bothered by this. Sure seems like a killer is now walking the streets.
Heemstra Released from Prison
- Thread starter NobodyBeatsCy
- Start date
psst. He would hardly be the only one. Lots of 'em arent even ever suspected, let alone arrested. That's life.
I read that story and couldn't quite figure out why they were making such a big fuss about it. I mean, they even detailed what his last day in prison was like. Having not lived in Iowa for about 15 years, I don't know anything about the case, so maybe there's something I'm not being told. But this kind of thing appears to happen all the time.
Hey, I understand and life isn't always fair. This one stinks because it's clear cut. He shot the man, drug his body with his truck, dumped him in a well and admitted it all. I know the old saying is that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free rather than keep an innocent man in jail - but there is nothing innocent about this.
Last edited:
The whole "convicted of manslaughter" part says to me that he has served his time. If they couldn't convict him of anything else, it's not so clear cut.
Last I knew, IIRC, the victim's family was suing to take his farm. I don't know what ever happened with that.
You take a life, you lose yours. I dont believe if you take a life on purpose, that you can do enough prison time.
I think that starts within the next week or so. Good thing about the civil trial, he'll have to take the stand.
I come back from vacation and find out a killer goes free and a convicted child killer gets a third trial. All of this was annouced within a few days of each other.
Aclone - He was originally convicted of 1st degree murder, appealed on a technicality and it was overturned. I think that's the "part" you are missing.
He was guilty of something, I don't know if it was first degree murder or not. After all I believe first degree murder is the planning and premedidation of murder, after looking at Wikipedia, manslaughter is defined as a "heat of the moment" thing. I'm sure Heemstra didn't wake up that day and say let's go kill Tom Lyon.
Given that, he should have still served more than 4 years. I don't understand how you can be sentenced to 10 years and get out in 4. A couple of articles I read said that was the max he needed to serve. Since when does 4 = 10?
The situation had been building for quite some time due to competition over available farmland. There had been conflict well before the day of the killing. This was no situation where a man walks in on his wife with the neighbor in bed.
The guy had an arguement with another guy that ended up with him shooting him (I believe in the face, but does it really matter?), drug his corpse from the back of his pickup truck on a gravel road and dumped his body in a well or a culvert. Again, Heemstra himself admitted all of it.
Since in the opinion of the state's supreme court "the judge erred in giving the jury instructions about what constitutes felony murder," the 1st degree murder conviction was reversed.
He now walks the streets with all of us - Tom Lyons is still dead. 4 years in jail? Sorry if I disagree with you, but it isn't right.
So, based just on what you said, the Supreme Court felt that the jury wasn't instructed well enough what felony murder entailed, so it overturned it and the next jury convicted on manslaughter? Doesn't that seem right then? If the first jury wrongly convicted murder according to the supreme court?
If Heemstra possessed the gun on his person before the altercation that led to the shooting ensued, then I find it hard to believe there was no premeditation. Why else would Heemstra be carrying a gun? It's farm-central USA. People don't normally walk around their farmland carrying a weapon. IIRC, Heemstra may have gone back to his truck to retrieve the gun.
The law doesn't require that a person think about killing someone for a certain period of time. It could be for only a split second. This one is on the prosecutor if you ask me as the the felony-murder conviction shouldn't have been relevant. It's first degree murder and should have been prosecuted as such.
The law doesn't require that a person think about killing someone for a certain period of time. It could be for only a split second. This one is on the prosecutor if you ask me as the the felony-murder conviction shouldn't have been relevant. It's first degree murder and should have been prosecuted as such.
Last edited:
No, it doesn't, sorry. "Wrongly convicted" due to a 40,000 foot view and debate of court room procedures between high-priced lawyers. "Wrongly convicted" over a set of instructions that are as complicated and convoluted as the closing documents for your house. I doubt the jury was able to pick out half the words being used during that discussion, let alone whether they were the right ones or not. What the did hear, though, was that Heemstra brutally murdered Lyons and decided what they did based on that.
You want to debate theory and proceedure. I want to debate basic right and wrong. I guess we'll have to deal with Heemstra another time - just like OJ.
Unlike OJ, this guy did serve time in jail however.
You don't see a problem in a jury not being instructed properly on what constitutes murder and then finding a murder conviction?
You don't see a problem in a jury not being instructed properly on what constitutes murder and then finding a murder conviction?
I do if the judge acted with bias or incompetently. Again, these jurors spent weeks with the case and evidence - They saw first-hand what murder is. To throw the whole thing out based on a few sentences, said in a few minutes, that may or may not be relevant (or even understood) is a travesty.
