Det. Robinson Convicted for Assault

Albemarle detective K.W. Robinson has been sentenced to 90 days in jail for his August 2001 assault on recently-acquitted suspect Corey Faison while Faison was in custody and undergoing interrogation. The judge described Robinson’s attack on Faison as “pure assault and battery, any way you look at it.” Rejecting Robinson’s defense that the beating of Faison (which required medical attention at a hospital) was reasonable force with police guidelines, Judge R. Edwin Burnette Jr. said: “If that is the case, then I fear for all our safety.” Adrienne Schwisow has an extensive story in today’s Progress that provides much more information.

7 Responses to “Det. Robinson Convicted for Assault”

  • This is made even worse by the fact he was innocent of the charges. That could have been you or your son being beaten.

  • I concur. However, I would like to draw attention that it took a "temp" judge from Lynchburg to convict this sadistic local cop. My own exposure with the civil branch of our local legislature has put a permanent dent in my faith of what we all commonly refer to as "Justice".

  • I wonder how the staff at the Joint Security Complex will handle his incarceration? Seems like he’d need to be kept isolated for his own protection.

  • This really isn’t that important, but "visiting" judges are a common practice, especially when the accused is related to the judicial system. Perhaps you’ve heard of attempting to ensure impartiality, both for the prosecution and the defendant.

    This really was standard practice, and not something "necessary" to get a conviction.

    It happens most frequently when a lawyer from the area is on trial for something, they bring in a "visiting" judge, so if he’s found not guilty, he doesn’t have to practice in front of a judge who was forced to consider all the evidence. Similarly, if this Detective was found not guilty, a future local judge would not be tainted.

  • No, I didn’t know that’s standard practice.

    But this *is* extremely important in my opinion. In civil court, magistrates and lawyers act as if "the law is the law" and I’ve witnessed firsthand that lawyers can be almost afraid to speak up when a particular judge is a maverick (no names here, as the judge I’m thinking about might hunt me down, god save me).

    What this means, to me, is that everything is subjective, that personalities and personal opinions play a much larger role than people realize. So when it is affirmed that someone has been “convicted”, that does not imply guilt in my opinion. Likewise, when an individual has been “cleared” from a prosecution, this does not equate to “not guilty”, as the court often erroneously interchanges.

    For some, my comments are a “duh!”. But for the common person, if that person has never personally have to deal with the law, then these may be shocking statements.

  • I have been told by inmates that the Joint Security Complex is an extreemly safe jail. They say the gaurds do everything they can to prevent inmate violence. You will not be assaulted or raped there. Those are problems in prisons, but not here.

  • Faison was *aquitted* of the charges. That is not defined the same way as innocent. I’m not saying that he was guilty, because I wasn’t there, but being aquitted doesn’t mean that you were necessarily innocent of the charges. It just means that there was reasonable doubt. Ex. OJ Simpson.

Comments are currently closed.