This is a long time coming and well deserved:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/story.aspx?storyid=195398&catid=28

Hmm, I am not so sure. I personally think the verdict should have been 2nd degree murder. There was not enough evidence to show that he planned for Nick to be killed. But Nick was killed in the commission of a kidnapping ordered by Hollywood so yes that would be 2nd degree murder. However in any event, I do think he will get a new trial due to rampant misconduct by prosecutors in this case. Personally even for the many here that will rip on my view and for the many here who hate on Hollywood, I will say, LWOP is a worse punishment for him than the death penalty would be.

Good riddance.

Daddy's money can't help him now.

Hmm, I am not so sure. I personally think the verdict should have been 2nd degree murder. There was not enough evidence to show that he planned for Nick to be killed. But Nick was killed in the commission of a kidnapping ordered by Hollywood so yes that would be 2nd degree murder. However in any event, I do think he will get a new trial due to rampant misconduct by prosecutors in this case. Personally even for the many here that will rip on my view and for the many here who hate on Hollywood, I will say, LWOP is a worse punishment for him than the death penalty would be.

Here we go again....

Here we go again....

My thoughts exactly.

Although, if I am ever on trial, I pray kadrmas is on my jury.

Hey thinman, I appreciate the humor. However I would not assume just because I am pro defense that it would mean I would let someone automatically walk out the door. Popular belief suggests this but it is not true. If I was on Jesse James Hollywood's jury would I have convicted of him of first degree murder? No. I would have convicted him of 2nd degree murder.

But on this jury, I would have never made it on there I do not think. I am anti death penalty and Hollywood had a death qualified jury although they ultimately did not recommend the death sentence for him. It was smart for the state to pursue death. The fact that in any given trial no matter where you have it, if it is a death qualified jury, the chances of the defendant being convicted go up dramatically. It is because not always but more often than not, people that support the death penalty tend to be more conservative, thus they tend to be more likely to convict.

Now granted death qualified juries do not always go the way the state would like them to go. Like in Ulysees Roberson's case, prosecutors did not seek the death penalty. They did have special circumstance allegations but had they been found true, he would have got LWOP. However he was acquitted of first degree murder so the special circumstances went away and he was convicted of 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree murder is a classic compromise verdict and in this case, I feel it was the appropriate verdict.

Now, in the Hollywood case, death was sought for the trigger man Ryan Hoyt and he did get death although the chances of him ever being executed are slim at best. The death penalty was pursued for co-defendant Jesse Rugge although he was acquitted of murder but was convicted of kidnapping and was sentenced to 7 years to life in prison where he remains today. Having been denied parole at least 3 times.

Graham Pressley, the death penalty was not pursued for him as he was 17 at the time of the murder. He was acquitted of kidnapping in his first trial but the jury hung on the murder charge. At his 2nd trial he was acquitted of first degree but convicted of 2nd degree murder. Normally he would have got 15 years to life. However the judge sentenced Pressley as a juvenile (the murder happened two months before Pressley turned 18) and the fact Pressley's dad was pals with the Sheriff of Santa Barbara County did not hurt his cause certainly. So Pressley was sentenced to the California Youth Authority until the age of 25. He was released in 2007.

Hopefully, Mr. Hollywood will make some new friends in prison and will become someone's b****

Actually the chances of that happening to Hollywood are pretty good. Really the only way I think he avoids that is if he gets put into protective custody which I expect he will be due to the high profile of his case. Hollywood's first stop in the California prison system will be to a reception center where he will spend 60 to 90 days being processed. San Quentin is one possible stop. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/SQ.html

The other possible stop is North Kern State Prison. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/NKSP.html

From there, Hollywood will receive his permanent assignment. He will most likely be sent to a prison with special protective services. So I would not be surprised to see him wind up at a real dump like Corcoran State Prison or Mule Creek State Prison in Northern California. He maybe would even wind up in the no man's land that is Pelican Bay.

This is a long time coming and well deserved:


My thoughts exactly. It sure took long enough and although the conviction of JJH's will never bring Nick Markowitz back, hopefully it will give his family some closure on their ten year journey through hell caused by this piece of scum.

Hopefully, Mr. Hollywood will make some new friends in prison and will become someone's b****


You have a badass avatar.

I think this case was a perfect first degree murder case. If I remember the facts correctly, he ordered the kidnapping of the victim, and the murder occurred during the course of the kidnapping. That makes it a felony-murder case (when a murder happens during the commission of a felony). It doesn't have to be planned that the person will be murdered (in other words, Hollywood didn't have to say, "kidnap him and then murder him"). The theory is that by committing a felony, their are inherent risks associated with such a felony, and the person knows those risks ahead of time.

For example, there have been many death sentences given to people who committed an armed robbery, and then a person was killed during the course of it... the state never had to prove that the murderer planned the kill the victim, only that the murder took place during the course of the robbery.

That's why I feel that a first degree murder charge is right on.

I think this case was a perfect first degree murder case. If I remember the facts correctly, he ordered the kidnapping of the victim, and the murder occurred during the course of the kidnapping. That makes it a felony-murder case (when a murder happens during the commission of a felony). It doesn't have to be planned that the person will be murdered (in other words, Hollywood didn't have to say, "kidnap him and then murder him"). The theory is that by committing a felony, their are inherent risks associated with such a felony, and the person knows those risks ahead of time.

For example, there have been many death sentences given to people who committed an armed robbery, and then a person was killed during the course of it... the state never had to prove that the murderer planned the kill the victim, only that the murder took place during the course of the robbery.

That's why I feel that a first degree murder charge is right on.

He ordered him to be "gotten rid of" while kidnapped, when he realized that kidnapping could put him away for a long time. I wish this was like Facebook, and I could click "like" on your comment. LOL

Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone during the Tate-LaBianca murders, and yet he was tried and convicted of first degree murder, and given the death penalty, because they were acting on his orders. I agree with you, entirely.

Hmm, not quite true there Bell in regards to Manson. The difference between Manson and Hollywood is he (Manson) ordered his followers to kill the victims. In one instance, the LaBianca killings, Manson was actually present, he went into the house and tied them up and then came out and told his followers to kill them. At other killings Manson was present, including in one instance slicing off part of a victims ear personally although another follower was the one that actually killed that victim.

I do not dispute that Hollywood should have been convicted of murder, but rather to the degree. To me, there is not enough there to convict Hollywood of first degree murder. There is enough to convict him of 2nd degree murder which under California law is a much more open ended statute in any event. I mean in California, you can convict just about anyone of 2nd degree murder because all you have to prove is 'implied' malice. In many states 2nd degree murder is intent to kill without premeditation or malice aforethought but in California, even if you did not have malice in your thinking at all you can still be convicted of 2nd degree murder. It happens a lot.

This is a long time coming and well deserved:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/story.aspx?storyid=195398&catid=28

This lower than life beyond scumbag should fry in the chair and I'm shocked he didn't get death because he sure as deserved it!!

Not that this justifies what Hollywood and his crew did but did Benjamin Markowitz really rip off Hollywood's drug money?

I was just wondering if that really happened or not.

I think this case was a perfect first degree murder case. If I remember the facts correctly, he ordered the kidnapping of the victim, and the murder occurred during the course of the kidnapping. That makes it a felony-murder case (when a murder happens during the commission of a felony). It doesn't have to be planned that the person will be murdered (in other words, Hollywood didn't have to say, "kidnap him and then murder him"). The theory is that by committing a felony, their are inherent risks associated with such a felony, and the person knows those risks ahead of time.

For example, there have been many death sentences given to people who committed an armed robbery, and then a person was killed during the course of it... the state never had to prove that the murderer planned the kill the victim, only that the murder took place during the course of the robbery.

That's why I feel that a first degree murder charge is right on.

RIGHT ON dude. You can even get life without parole for CONSPIRACY to commit murder so there is NO doubt Hollywood's case IS 1st degreee murder.

He knew he would get lots of time for the kidnapping charge so he ordered the boy killed. Then he fled to Brazil since he KNEW he'd be in HUGE trouble if caught.

Hmm, not quite true there Bell in regards to Manson. The difference between Manson and Hollywood is he (Manson) ordered his followers to kill the victims. In one instance, the LaBianca killings, Manson was actually present, he went into the house and tied them up and then came out and told his followers to kill them. At other killings Manson was present, including in one instance slicing off part of a victims ear personally although another follower was the one that actually killed that victim.

I do not dispute that Hollywood should have been convicted of murder, but rather to the degree. To me, there is not enough there to convict Hollywood of first degree murder. There is enough to convict him of 2nd degree murder which under California law is a much more open ended statute in any event. I mean in California, you can convict just about anyone of 2nd degree murder because all you have to prove is 'implied' malice. In many states 2nd degree murder is intent to kill without premeditation or malice aforethought but in California, even if you did not have malice in your thinking at all you can still be convicted of 2nd degree murder. It happens a lot.

It's a felony-murder case though. If a murder occurs during a felony, it's 1st degree, regardless of mens rea. mattc's right on.

Hopefully, Mr. Hollywood will make some new friends in prison and will become someone's b****

Hollywood is such a midget you would think he would not only get raped in prison but also get his tiny midget butt thoroughly kicked!!

Well again, not necessarily. In California you can convict someone of either first or second degree murder. I personally would not convict of first degree murder in this case even though the law says you can, mainly because I am not convinced that Hollywood knew Nick Markowitz was going to be killed and I certainly am not confident enough that he ordered him to be killed. So to me, 2nd degree is the more appropriate verdict.

Well again, not necessarily. In California you can convict someone of either first or second degree murder. I personally would not convict of first degree murder in this case even though the law says you can, mainly because I am not convinced that Hollywood knew Nick Markowitz was going to be killed and I certainly am not confident enough that he ordered him to be killed. So to me, 2nd degree is the more appropriate verdict.

WRONG. Murder committed during the commission of a felony IS 1st degree murder in CA and you are blind to the truth if you can't see Hollywood did order the hit to have Nick killed.

There was more evidence against Hollywood than there is in some conspiracy to commit murder cases where they get life without parole.

You are just saying that since you are jaded with your anti-dp position. If your son or relative was killed you'd feel different and if not then you have even bigger problems.

Kidnapping and holding someone hostage for a week are felonies. I'm sure there were a dozen or more other felonies committed that week. Markowitz died during the commission of those felonies. That is murder one all the way.

Well again, not necessarily. In California you can convict someone of either first or second degree murder. I personally would not convict of first degree murder in this case even though the law says you can, mainly because I am not convinced that Hollywood knew Nick Markowitz was going to be killed and I certainly am not confident enough that he ordered him to be killed. So to me, 2nd degree is the more appropriate verdict.

California Penal Code Section 189 (emphasis added):

All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.

As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.

As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any
item defined in Section 11417.

To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.

The law is clear. I understand you're saying you'd vote to acquit (given the law, I would doubt the DA would bring anything but 1st degree), but you'd essentially be ignoring the jury charge, presuming the state proved both the death and the kidnapping.

California Penal Code Section 189 (emphasis added):

All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.


Egswanso, AWESOME job dude!! You put kadrmas in his place since it's obvious he IGNORES the facts and just pushes his anti-dp agenda.

BTW, what kind of a name is Egswanso?? LOL

:wave: