How Lending A Friend Your Car, Then Going to Bed Can Land You a Life Prison Sentence vol: the prison

1,577
1,119
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
They got a white dude

How Lending A Friend Your Car, Then Going to Bed Can Land You a Life Prison Sentence

Florida man Ryan Holle is currently serving his 11th year of a life sentence, even with no prior criminal record.

rholle.jpg


Several years ago I read a piece in The New York Times by Adam Liptak about Ryan Holle. Ryan, who had no prior record, is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole in Florida. He was convicted of pre-meditated murder, even though no one, including the prosecutor, disputes that Ryan was asleep in his bed at home at the time of the crime. This could only happen in America, because we are the only country that retains the Felony Murder Rule. What the Felony Murder Rule essentially says is if anyone has anything to do with a felony in which a murder takes place, such as a robbery, that person is as guilty as the person who has committed the murder. Every other country including England, India and Canada has gotten rid of it because of its unintended consequences. In America, Michigan, Kentucky and Hawaii no longer have the law. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled, when they discarded the Felony Murder Rule, that a person should be held responsible for his own actions not the actions of others.

Exactly what did Ryan Holle do? At a party in his apartment over ten years ago, he lent his car to his roommate and went to sleep. He had lent his car to his roommate many times before with no negative consequences. This time the roommate and others went to a house where they knew a woman was selling marijuana from a safe. They planned to get the marijuana, but in the course of their break-in a teenage girl was killed. Those at the scene all received appropriately harsh sentences, but so did Ryan Holle. I got involved with the case shortly after I read Adam Liptak’s piece. I have been advocating on behalf of clemency for Ryan, who was first offered a plea deal of ten years but chose to go to trial. I’m sure it was difficult for a young man, who had never been arrested, and who believed he had done nothing to accept that he should go to prison for ten years, so he went to trial, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. He is now in his eleventh year of incarceration. Again, this is a young man who was home asleep in bed at the time of the crime. I personally know of no other felony murder conviction where the person was not even present, and the pre-meditated part of the conviction suggests that Ryan knew his car was going to be used in the course of a murder, which to me, isn’t credible. To the best of my knowledge, in the entire history of the criminal justice system in America, no one has ever been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for loaning a car and going to sleep.

A few years ago I was on a television show with the father of the girl who was murdered in the robbery attempt. The father felt that it was entirely justified that Ryan Holle spend his life in prison. At the time, I couldn’t bring myself to say what I was feeling. I felt the father and mother were a lot more responsible for their daughter’s death than Ryan Holle. The mother did actually serve three years in prison for selling drugs, but both parents in no way should have been involved in selling drugs from their house. It would only be a question of time before the wrong person knocked on the door. In my judgment, parents who would do that with two teenage daughters at home have a lot more responsibility for this tragedy than Ryan Holle.

*update*
But when you read the article linked in Balko’s post, you learn that not only had Holle “given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary” before lending the burglars the car, but he also “did testify that he had been told it might be necessary to ‘knock out’ Jessica Snyder.”

Instead of merely knocking her out, the burglars knocked her dead. This sounds like it was foreseeable to Mr. Holle, who knew the burglars were contemplating a burglary with possible violence involved.

Holle now claims he thought the burglars were joking when they talked about the burglary they were going to commit. But a jury convicted Mr. Holle, meaning they didn’t believe that. I’m viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution’s position, just as an appellate court will. The jury’s verdict necessarily means they believed Holle knew about the planned burglary in advance.

In other words, Mr. Holle didn’t just lend his car to some buddies. He lent his car to some people who said they were going to use it to drive to do a burglary, during the course of which they might “knock out” the victim.


http://patterico.com/2007/12/06/another-misleading-attack-on-the-felony-murder-rule/





let him rot
 
Last edited:
Next time sumone asks to borrow my truck ima show them this article and say no

Protect urself guys, u rather be a bad friend then tyrones friend in prison
 
Look at his eyes, he don't even give a **** anymore.


11 years, he gave up sobbing, gave up despair, gave up hope.

:smh:


But people still champion the American justice system. I hate people.


Thank you for posting this OP.
 
Last edited:
So none of his so called "friends " vouched that he didn't know what they were going to do?if I'm reading it right the prosecutor was able to somewhat prove that he knew their intentions?
 
Normally I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to stories like this (imgur kind of ruined sob stories for me, in which I tend to keep it scrolling/on to the next) but this really hit home. All too often I tend to lend friends or family access to my car without ever having to truly think through it or believe otherwise would happen...but considering the story above, never again.

:smh:
 
So none of his so called "friends " vouched that he didn't know what they were going to do?if I'm reading it right the prosecutor was able to somewhat prove that he knew their intentions?


they did

Allen said in a pretrial deposition that all Holle did "was to say, 'Use the car.' I mean, nobody really knew that girl was going to get killed. It was not in the plans to go kill somebody, you know."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
So none of his so called "friends " vouched that he didn't know what they were going to do?if I'm reading it right the prosecutor was able to somewhat prove that he knew their intentions?
thats messed up... his friends should have said something, if i knew they werent gonna help me, i would have said they stole my car keys when i passed out...
 
Last edited:
This could have possibly been the only thing to ruin my day after watching GoT.

This has successfully ruined my day reading this.
 
I mean... I reserve judgment til I see the evidence the prosecutor used against him. 

They proved he knew they were borrowing the car to go commit a crime so either

A. there's evidence showing he had knowledge of the planned robbery (or that his friends had something illegal planned) which would be conspiracy and subsequently felony murder and this article just isn't showing us that evidence

or

B. Florida.
 
Last edited:
Someone should ask the judge to borrow a pen then proceed to write a bad check. From there they can say that the judge aided in the crime and place the judge in jail. Maybe then they'd understand the idiocy and miscarriage of justice.
 
Last edited:
So, he knew they were going to rob someone & he let them borrow the car to do it?

Is that how the premeditated part got him?
 
But when you read the article linked in Balko’s post, you learn that not only had Holle “given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary” before lending the burglars the car, but he also “did testify that he had been told it might be necessary to ‘knock out’ Jessica Snyder.”

Instead of merely knocking her out, the burglars knocked her dead. This sounds like it was foreseeable to Mr. Holle, who knew the burglars were contemplating a burglary with possible violence involved.

Holle now claims he thought the burglars were joking when they talked about the burglary they were going to commit. But a jury convicted Mr. Holle, meaning they didn’t believe that. I’m viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution’s position, just as an appellate court will. The jury’s verdict necessarily means they believed Holle knew about the planned burglary in advance.

In other words, Mr. Holle didn’t just lend his car to some buddies. He lent his car to some people who said they were going to use it to drive to do a burglary, during the course of which they might “knock out” the victim.


http://patterico.com/2007/12/06/another-misleading-attack-on-the-felony-murder-rule/





let him rot
 
But when you read the article linked in Balko’s post, you learn that not only had Holle “given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary” before lending the burglars the car, but he also “did testify that he had been told it might be necessary to ‘knock out’ Jessica Snyder.”

welp. No sympathy here.
 
Back
Top Bottom