On the surface, judicial diversion doesnt seem to me to be a terrible miscarriage of justice.

This is the thing that bothers me, though.

The little snot never admitted to doing what everyone around him agrees that he did. That is, he knowingly committed a felony, after being specifically advised not to. He basically posited the "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" defense.

Ignore the underlying felony for a second. I sort of thought his refusal to admit core, first-hand responsibility should have disqualified him from diversion.

All the justice you can afford.

I'm not convinced this is the same sentence anyone else would have gotten.

Speaking of WTF, this little ditty was up for a little while last night; (link...)

So Duncan gets caught, and the result is some Bank East execs are going to their hands slapped?

Or, there’s the “courthouse” option:

Duncan’s wife, Jennifer, said earlier this year after her husband pleaded guilty, that Duncan would soon “set the courthouse on fire.”

Really? The “courthouse” is already on “fire”. It’s just been contained to a file by the TBI and housed by a few local judges and lawyers.

Edit: WBIR provides more detail on the vagueness: (link...)

I have a friend who got a judicial diversion after pleading guilty to attempted aggravated arson. He got into an argument with a bartender at a dive on Central Avenue a few years ago. It's a long story, he says he was innocent and I'm satisfied he was guilty as sin - just like JD3.

During his diversion, he swears he was harassed by every uniformed officer in town and he eventually sold his house and all his other worldly goods and moved to Hawaii. He even gave me his cemetery plot and a half paid for marker in Greenwood.

Somehow I can't picture JD3 having the same problem. He will eventually emerge from this smelling like a rose.

Don't see any way JD3 can rehabilitate himself as a viable candidate for anything he would have to run in Knox County.

In the Bast East investigation, he may have to end up implicating/rolling on other Republican office holders and some current office holders. In that context, while it may appear to be the right thing to do, it will continue to cost him dearly in Republican circles, many of whom are not enthralled with the Duncan Dynasty at all, particularly since it is so irrelevant to the state and national Republican efforts (i.e. ever see Jimmy Duncan on Fox News? he's been there how long and still doesn't chair a standing committee of stubstance?)

It would have been unusual, and maybe even unlawful, for the judge to deny diversion in this case. Judge Leibowitz is very prone to granting diversion when defendants are eligible, particularly when they are young. Also, Judge Leibowitz is about the most honest, fair, and decent human being to sit on the bench as they come. I was in court on another matter - and btw, I am no fan of the Duncan family, believe me - when this case came up. So I heard all of her remarks before she granted diversion, and nothing she said was out of line. She had to make a statement acknowledging the prominence of the family in order to further show she was not considering that in granting diversion. She had to acknowledge her personal experience growing up in a city where the Duncans have for better or worse been a dominant presence for generations. If she hadn't acknowledged any of that, somebody on here would be grousing about her sinister omissions.

Judge Leibowitz tends to be a very friendly, agreeable and pleasant human being to everyone. She treats defendants the same no matter who their lawyer is. Ask any public defender and they'll tell you there is no "who you know" or "what you pay" taken into consideration in her court.

That is certainly not to say I always agree with her decisions; I frequently don't. But I sure as hell would never accuse her of collaborating with power or cast dark aspersions against her integrity or honesty. Boy people are quick to draw the corruption card any time they don't like what a judge does or says.

Oh, and that little, minor point about what the LAW says about judicial diversion sorta kinda plays into the decisions judges make in these cases as well. And the law says a judge must take the following factors into consideration: (1) amenability to correction; (2) circumstances of the offense; (3) criminal record of defendant; (4) social history of defendant; (5) physical and mental health; (6) deterrence value; (6) whether jud. div. will serve the interests of the public and the defendant. I think under (6) and maybe (2), a different judge might have ruled against diversion. But since nobody on the State's side appeared to argue that either of those factors weighed against Duncan, those issues didn't seem to be too pressing.

Judge Leibowitz did exactly what she would have done in any other case where a young man cheated and stole that amount of money in an official or unofficial capacity. Sorry to burst any corruption and collusion fantasies, but that's just how it is. You can bitch all day about how the Man is getting away with It again, and I'll probably agree with you on that point, but it's not like anybody is ever going to forget about this. Whether his record gets officially expunged or not.

JDIII's offenses are miniscule compared to the charges against Lowe. Not a good comparison.

Hard to say, Toby.
There are so many rumors swirling around...