Sentenced To Life In Prison For Loaning His Roommate His Car And Going To Sleep
Our justice system needs to change -- in that it needs to start revolving around justice instead of "zero tolerance"-type laws that end up sweeping up the innocent and throwing them in jail along with the guilty on sick technicalities.
Ryan Holle is serving a life sentence with no change of parole. Charles Grodin writes in The Nation:
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.
...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.
Unbelievable -- the note added at the bottom of the piece:
Note: Since writing the above, I have been told that Ryan was just denied clemency.
Florida: The Kansas of the South.
Or as a well-known TV personality refers to it, "America's dangling shame."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 7, 2014 11:37 PM
I gather from the comments from the linked article that Ryan Holle's (alleged) friends told him in detail of their plans before they asked to borrow the car. That appears to be the deciding factor. Holle claims that in a drunken stupor he thought they were joking. The sentence still sounds too harsh.
doombuggy at April 8, 2014 4:11 AM
Holle's (alleged) friends told him in detail of their plans before they asked to borrow the car
Hmmm...sounds like a criminal conspiracy. The sentence maybe too harsh, yet he has blood on his hands.
It will take some time to get it off.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 8, 2014 6:02 AM
On the surface it seems like a complete travesty of justice.
However, I was reading those same comments doombuggy mentioned. If it's indeed true, he was told in advance about their plan to commit a crime using his car, and he chose to let them use it, that makes a big difference.
The penalty is still too harsh, but he's not innocent either. If somebody asks to use your car to commit a crime, and you agree, it seems only fair you should share the blame and consequences of the crime.
Regarding the drunk defense. I suppose his friends could have taken advantage of him, asking to use his car when he was too intoxicated to understand what was happening.
Tim at April 8, 2014 6:11 AM
I think it's odd, some people who commented really believe the guy did *nothing* wrong.
As if to say... hey, we have all loaned our car to a buddy before, knowing he was planning to rob a drug dealer.
Sure, happens all the time. 2 or 3 times a week. I never know when my friends are serious, plus I'm drunk a lot, so don't blame me if they really did it this time.
What's that? You want to borrow my car to commit a crime? No problem, here's the keys. Do you need any gas money?
Tim at April 8, 2014 6:25 AM
Way too harsh. The kid was drunk but subsequently he did admit, foolishly, that he sort of knew what the guys borrowing the car were up to. However, that is still debatable even though those were his own words, the kid was hammered and basically said, "Take my car". Worst case I would think he deserves maybe probation and community service. In truth though, he should not have been prosecuted at all, that is simply an abuse of the intention of the law, in my opinion. Interesting side note, the safe which still had a pound of pot in it after the robbery that was discovered by the police, netted the mother of the victim who owned it 3 years in jail. So, that being said, if you are going to stretch the law like the prosecutor said "No car, no crime." why wouldn't you say also "No weed, no crime." and go after the mother for murder as well? Because it doesn't hold up, just like the car thing.
Dirtbag Surfer at April 8, 2014 6:45 AM
Idiocy on the part of the prosecutor and the judge is to blame here, not statutes condemning felony murder. The other element is negligence on the part of the board of pardons and the Governor.
Art Deco at April 8, 2014 7:01 AM
I suppose it depends if they were planning on sharing the pot or money with him. If he knowingly benefits from the criminal action he is criminally liable.
If the "I was too drunk" doesn't clear you of vehicular man slaughterer not sure it should here either. If he knew what they had planned and he went along with it I can only assume he expected some pay out. Other wise why the hell would you lend someone a car to do something illegal. I still agree that life in this case is over kill.
vlad at April 8, 2014 8:15 AM
All of us have heard someone utter the phrase "in gonna kill'em." Few of us have seen it come to pass. It is an angry letting off steam phrase 99.9% of the time.
Even so, the felony murder rule, apart from being unfair, has the unintented consequence of turning witnesses into accomplices. Worse, it is often the perpetrator who turns evidence against a witness. I once met a pastor who did time under the felony murder rule. He drove a getaway car for a theft when he was young unaware someone was killed, and the murderer was given a deal to testify at the driver's murder trial. We need to set it up so accomplices for lesser crimes are better off turning someone in.
Trust at April 8, 2014 9:23 AM
"All of us have heard someone utter the phrase "in gonna kill'em." Few of us have seen it come to pass. It is an angry letting off steam phrase 99.9% of the time." Sure but when I lend you my gun after hearing that I'd still be an accomplice. Obviously far more guilty than in this case though.
Did the pastor know it was a robbery or was it something his buddy sprung on him? If he chose to be part of the robbery and things got out of hand he deserves exactly what he got.
Vlad at April 8, 2014 10:21 AM
Vlad,
Yes, he knew it was a robbery, and he was very open that what happened to him was his own fault. He never once said he didn't deserve it, he warns youth of the dangers of getting involved with a bad crowd.
The conclusion was mine. He should have been charged with theft, not murder, unless of course he helped cover it up. The accomplices to the theft should be the witnesses against the.murderer
Trust at April 8, 2014 10:32 AM
New York has a felony murder provision in its Penal Law, but I think what this fellow did would be classified as an 'anticipatory offense' so there would be no murder charge.
Art Deco at April 8, 2014 11:19 AM
How can you read this and not immediately think there's more to this story? He knew they intended to commit armed robbery and said, "Use the car."
He chose to assist in an armed robbery. (It appears he backtracked later and tried to say he thought they were joking, but he did not convince a jury.) An armed robbery always comes with the strong possibility of killing an innocent person.
Insufficient Poison at April 8, 2014 12:52 PM
I see from comments above that Mr. Holle, far from being "an innocent man that just loaned his roomie a car without knowing anything bad was going on" - as The Nation wants me to think - was ... "a man who loaned his roomie a car to go rob people".
Is the felony murder rule a little harsh here? Probably.
But robberies have this way of getting out of hand.
Which is exactly why we have the felony murder rule, to make the cost of abetting felonies that "get out of hand" higher.
Don't knowingly help people commit armed robbery, either by participating or by giving them a weapon - or the getaway vehicle.
It's not hard to avoid - I've never done it, and I've lived longer than him!
(And The Nation deserves our scorn for not even mentioning that he knew they were going to commit crimes with his car; as if he was a completely innocent man who had no way of knowing that someone was going to use his car in a robbery, and then went to jail for a crime he never even suspected might maybe happen.
But that's The Nation for you.)
Sigivald at April 8, 2014 1:08 PM
If a woman can't consent to sex while drunk, how can a man consent to loan his car while drunk?
Snoopy at April 8, 2014 1:20 PM
Michigan still has felony murder rule.
greatkate21 at April 8, 2014 1:36 PM
Even so, the felony murder rule, apart from being unfair, has the unintented consequence of turning witnesses into accomplices. Worse, it is often the perpetrator who turns evidence against a witness. I once met a pastor who did time under the felony murder rule. He drove a getaway car for a theft when he was young unaware someone was killed, and the murderer was given a deal to testify at the driver's murder trial. We need to set it up so accomplices for lesser crimes are better off turning someone in.
Posted by: Trust at April 8, 2014 9:23 AM
In theory that sounds reasonable. In practice, you have the prisoner's dilemma.
Usually it is two or three or even five guys, all claiming someone else was the trigger man, and that they should get off while the trigger man gets all the blame.
The felony murder rule spreads the penalties around to all of those who planned and helped execute the underlying crime. Perfect, no, but better than scapegoating one individual alone for a conspiracy.
Isab at April 8, 2014 2:40 PM
I, for one, as an American, feel much, MUCH safer now that I know such a cold-blooded criminal is behind and unable to lend any more cars!
Sosij at April 8, 2014 4:15 PM
Isabel,
Fair enough. I would support a rule that made those who cover it up accomplices bc they really would be. I certainly don't think the.accomplices to the original crime should get off Scott free. But I do think it should be in their best interest to turn in the killer rather.than help cover it up.
No solution is perfect though.
Trust at April 8, 2014 6:34 PM
Fair enough. I would support a rule that made those who cover it up accomplices bc they really would be. I certainly don't think the.accomplices to the original crime should get off Scott free. But I do think it should be in their best interest to turn in the killer rather.than help cover it up.
No solution is perfect though.
Posted by: Trust at April 8, 2014 6:34 PM
This is essentially what happens now, under the felony murder rule.
The difficulty is determining who is telling the truth about what. Not always that easy.
By the way, for his involvement in the robbery which led the the murder, Ryan Holle, was offered a plea bargain deal of ten years, which would have, most likely been about two or three, followed by parole.
He refused to take the plea bargain, and it was the jury who gave him the life sentence.
Isab at April 8, 2014 6:42 PM
Yes, the felony-murder rule should be abolished. But he's not serving LWOP solely because of that rule.
He's serving it because (1) he had knowledge of his friends' plan and (2) he turned down an offer for 10 years! Maybe he was badly advised; maybe he was completely unrealistic about the likelihood of being convicted. But he's where he is at least in part because he chose to turn down the offer.
JD at April 8, 2014 6:44 PM
Folks, I think the decision is right and the felony murder rule is working the way it's supposed to. Substitute "gun" for "car" in the tale and see how you feel about it. Holle loaned his car to his friends, knowing full well that they intended to use it to commit a violent felony. That makes him an accomplice. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
Cousin Dave at April 9, 2014 6:56 AM
Leave a comment