Miriam mom of 5 in anti Talarico ads

Sophos3 :
@MesC67
I pbject to t hat person's false statemen t s and omission sions. Theyse seem purposeful to me.

Sophos3 :
To answer that last question the people involved in the reduced sentence was the jury that had 5 jurors leaning to vote not guilty, both attorneys, the judge, and the victim's mother.I think you are saying the other part wrong. We both probably agree a judge can reject a plea deal. He objected to the first one in a way that led to all parties that were responsible for finalizing the legal agreement. His main objection was the length of the sentence. I think what you meant to say was that a judge can only reject a plea deal and can't unilaterally change the terms of the deal. Do you agree that is what you meant to say?This article www.texastribune.org /2026/05/19/ken-paxt on-waco-plea-deal-ch ild-sex-abuse-t shows that the judge suggested 60 days and the defense attorney agreed to it on the spot. Why didn't the judge go for more time knowing the defendant would only serve half the time? That to me looks like lenient treatment. The judge could have suggested a full year knowing he would serve 6 months. The law does not prevent the judge from suggesting a longer sentence. We can also argue that the jury gave the defendant lenient treatment. This wasn't like the woman who killed her own children. That was one juror who stood strong. The Guy charged in the Paxton accusation had 5 jurors saying he was not guilty. That is how weak the evidence was. I would think that both the AG and the judge were aware of how close the case was to just being dismissed. So they both pushed for something less than a year. They only disagreed about the number of days. The judge knew that 60 days means only 29 more days than he actually served.Because I am a very protective mother, I would be more upset that the guy didn't spend the rest of his life in prison and did not have to register. An extra 30 days would not satisfy me that justice was served. If I was that mother, the villain is not Ken Paxton. The villain is the man who did that to my child and left so little evidence that a jury could not convict and some even thought he was not guilty.

MrsC67 :
Ok. I'll try and be more clear because you are missing some of the points and forgive the expanded nature of this post. It's going to be long. We'll start with the jury. There was no leaning towards what they were voting. Seven were for a definitive guilty and 5 for a definitive not guilty. If they were leaning. Leaning means they were not locked in at a stalemate and a discussion could happen to sway one way or another. If that were true, it would be a hung jury and they'd be forced back into deliberations. Next the judge can't bargain, counter offer, or "suggest" alternative numbers like an auctioneer. When Judge Sparkman rejected the initial 30 days, he simply used his binary power to say "no." The subsequent jump to 60 days was entirely a calculation made by the prosecution and defense to find a number they believed the judge would finally accept without terminating the plea path altogether. If a judge actively dictates the terms of a plea deal, it constitutes judicial coercion and serves as automatic grounds for the defense to get the case thrown out on appeal.Back to the jury. The jury couldnt give Hoffman a lighter sentence. They don't have legal authority to grant leniency because they failed to reach the unanimous consensus required to convict or acquit. Furthermore, a 7 to 5 split means a majority of the jurors voted that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In no way was the case close to being dismissed. Because of the jury not agreeing unamaously the prosecutor is entirely free to retry a deadlocked case as many times as they want as long as the judge allows.As for the mother, I don't blame her for blaming both the sexual predator as well as Paxton and the AG's office. Accountability lands squarely on Paxton and his office. The AG is at massive fault because only the prosecution has the power to drop felony charges down to misdemeanors. Not the judge, not the mother, not the jury. The judges hands are tied by the law. He can't unilaterally alter a charge from first degree felony child abuse to Class A misdemeanors.
Paxton's office chose to offer a deal that completely bypassed mandatory sex offender registration. The prosecutors can claim they wanted to avoid putting a traumatized child through a second trial after a hung jury that's fine. That's not an issue. The poor child has been through enough. The legal reality is that the lack of registry was a direct result of prosecutorial discretion, not a restriction imposed by the judge.The victim gets to not have to relive his trauma on the stand but, he also has to live every day with the knowledge that the man who perpetrated the crime is walking around free and the anxiety of if they'll ever meet again. As a note, Hoffman violated his bond while the trial was still in motion. He wasn't supposed to have contact with anyone under the age of 17. Knowing this, the prosecution still made the plea deal. Horrible.

Sophos3 :
There is a reality about how some people orhee's plight. Lip se de vice doesn't always express a level of not caring or understanding, foe example PTSD. . Initials don't convey th e horror the victim exp eriences.