This is rich.
Shane Ragland first kills Trent DiGiuro in cold blood. Next, he weasels his way out of prison through a plea deal that includes his admission that he was INDEED the culprit.
And now, in an attempt to defend himself against a wrongful death lawsuit filed by DiGiuro's family, he has the audacity to claim that admission shouldn't be used against him!
Are we in Bizarro World?
Let's get some things straight. Ragland didn't enter an "Alford Plea," which doesn't admit guilt but acknowledges there's likely enough evidence for a conviction. No, in order to get sprung he admitted to being the guy who did the killing.
Call me crazy, but that sounds to me like pretty decent evidence that he's liable for DiGiuro's wrongful death.
Of course, his attorney, Steve Romines, disagrees. He says that plea doesn't automatically establish liability for the death.
No? What would? Is Romines hinting that Ragland may have just been kidding us in order to get out of jail?
If that's the case, I have an idea. Let's put him back in.
Look - this is simple. DiGiuro is dead. Ragland is responsible. He managed to skip out early on his debt to society by copping a plea, but he can't have it both ways.
He should pay up and shut up and feel lucky he's gotten away with this much.
I'm Bill Lamb, and that's my Point of View.