Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Robbers assaulted a man and took his checks, money, and bank book. They sold one of the checks to the guy who got arrested when he passed the check. But there was not enough evidence, IMHO, to convince a jury that he was the robber. The timeline is not clear from the article, but it sounds like they could have caught their mistake a lot sooner.
I looked up the article expecting to see an assault with a deadly weapon was involved. But it was apparently only the priors that got him such a long sentence. 
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read