Latest Headlines
- Escambia School Board Buys 36 Acres For $3.9 Million For New Beulah School
- Century Spending Over $3.3 Million On Five Sewage Lift Stations
- Man Gets 50 Years In Prison For 2022 Murder At Cantonment Gas Station
- Pedestrian Checking Trailer Tire Struck By Car In Two Vehicle Crash Near Century
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Century YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- Escambia Public School Hosting Job Fair On July 29
- Woman Arrested In Kentucky For Fatal 2023 Escambia County Hit And Run
- ‘Operation Southern Slow Down; Targets Speeding In Five States
- Atmore Man, Century Woman Arrested During Suspicious Vehicle Investigation
87-Year Old Caught On Tape Selling Crack Cocaine Pleads Not Guilty
June 3, 2010
An 87-year old woman allegedly caught on video selling crack cocaine to undercover officers pleaded not guilty Thursday morning in Escambia County Circuit Court.
Ola Mae Agee, 87, of Pensacola, was charged by the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office with one felony count of selling cocaine. Appearing before Circuit Court Judge Nickolas Geeker Thursday morning, Agee entered her not guilty plea.
“During the investigation suspect Ola Mae Agee was captured on video selling crack cocaine to undercover deputies. This sale and other narcotic sales at the residence led to a search warrant being executed at Agee’s residence today,” according to a statement released at the time of Agee’s arrest by Sgt. Ted Roy, spokesperson for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office.
An undercover video shows Agee selling a $20 piece of crack cocaine inside her house to an undercover deputy.
Agee was allowed to turnherself in on the outstanding drug warrant and was released on her own recognizance. She remains out of jail.
In 1996, Agee was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to forfeit $1,971 seized at the time of her arrest for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver and resisting arrest with violence. In 1999, she once again faced charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
Comments
22 Responses to “87-Year Old Caught On Tape Selling Crack Cocaine Pleads Not Guilty”
David Huie Green ,
Your rambling diatribe reads like the Unabomber’s Manifesto.
Photo of Ola Mae = Looks like she could use a “spit cup”.
REGARDING:
“I am not sure of what crime it is that you are confessing to, but it’s the criminals who plan to plead not-guilty and then depend on juries to do the wrong thing and set them free who have made jury trials obsolete.”
I’ve come across the thinking before, “He must be guilty because he pled NOT GUILTY and the guilty always do that, therefore he must be guilty.”
It should be obvious that I am not confessing to any crime. I might decide to go into a life of crime at some time in the future, though, and if I do and am caught, I would like to make the system prove my guilt, not just decide to throw in the towel to make their lives simpler.
Beyond that, though, our Constitution was written by people who remembered the abuses of the British legal system of the time. There were judges who basically locked up juries until they gave a guilty verdict. Some judges or law enforcement types kept charging folks with crimes for which they had been acquitted several times already. There were those who would force a confession out of folks even when they just assumed guilt.
We decided we didn’t want that kind of justice system so we wrote the supreme law of the land to insist those accusing be able to convince a jury of common people the accusation was valid.
Even with all those safeguards, we keep running into cases where police decided to help a conviction along by planting evidence to strengthen the case against the defendant. One example coming to mind was in the murder trial of OJ Simpson. There was plenty of evidence which should have convicted him but there was evidence police planted evidence in his residence which had been found at the crime scene. If they’ll plant some evidence, a reasonable jury questions all the evidence they provide.
More recently in Illinois there were a number of people convicted based on falsified evidence and hundreds of convictions thrown out because they were gaming the system.
Those were Yankees and not expected to act decently like us proper Southerners but we can look closer to home and see where police lied about drug prescriptions for whatever reason. If they will lie about that, how do you trust them in criminal charges?
We have people today who figure it’s cheaper to plead guilty than to hire a lawyer to prove innocence. And there are some lawyers who might be tempted to suggest you confess to a lighter charge to reduce the worst that can happen to a client or to reduce their personal work load.
A deputy I used to know and respect told me of an incident where another deputy shot someone who he said produced a weapon, making it self defense. A number of deputies drove by the scene and tossed out assorted pistols and knives to shore up their comrade’s defense. One weapon showed up which actually had the fingerprints of the one who was shot but it shows there are cases in which our guardians will guard each other rather than worry about the truth.
I also remember a deputy sheriff who used to hang around the McDavid Volunteer Fire Department and was later found to have stolen several thousand dollars worth of equipment just from that one department. He continued to work as a deputy for several years after that. Would you want him empowered to decide all by himself your guilt or innocence?
I know one fellow who claims to remember when the lady in question used to work in another vice and got several male deputies fired FIFTY years ago, back in 1960 back when she was a good looking 37 year old. Would you have wanted any of her clients arresting you and deciding your guilt or innocence on the spot?
Sometimes charges are made up to cover wrong doing on the parts of others.
I sincerely doubt that’s the case here but just forcing folks to plead GUILTY would be wrong. We are all human and subject to temptation to do wrong. The only protection is to force us to prove our claims.
And regarding my earlier claim that it would not matter to me if there were a thousand witnesses to my future crime, you may remember hearing of Robert Kennedy, killed in front of a roomful of witnesses. They pretty much all testified he was shot from about twenty feet away.
The doctor who looked at the marks made by powder from the gun which killed him was able to prove he was actually killed from just inches to feet away, much closer than witnesses all agreed.
If I were his killer (and I deny that crime too) I would be tempted to say, “All these people agree I shot from 20′ away and the shot which killed him was from 18″ away, therefore my witnesses prove I wasn’t the one who actually killed him.”
Witnesses aren’t always reliable; some might falsely accuse others to get a lighter sentence or better jail conditions or simply off. Even video tape can be doctored. Evidence can be planted or removed. Sometimes the crime was justified or the law shouldn’t have ever been passed but the only way to say so is to vote NOT GUILTY even when you are.
It’s dangerous and subject to abuses but anything involving us humans is dangerous and subject to abuse. The most dangerous thing is to assume all charges are true. What if somebody accused YOU of killing Lincoln? Can you prove you didn’t or won’t build a time machine or otherwise come into possession of one and go back and kill him and frame poor innocent John Wilkes Booth?
Wendy, if you are so sure that our law enforcement officials only arrest those who are guilty, you should check out The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org) . I’m sure it will prove enlightening.
Wendy,
I really hope you are being sarcastic, because if not you have a whole lot to learn about guilty and not guilty. Law enforcement officers have never had the authority to determine if a person is guilty or not, not in this country and you and everyone else better be glad it’s that way. While I believe that the vast majority of officers are good honest hard working people, like everyone else they do make mistakes. What if someone vaguely matched your description and drove a vehicle similar to yours robbed a store. Would you want to spend several years in prison because you happen to be in the area and a officer decided that it was you that robbed the store. I served on one of your obsolete juries several years ago where a man was arrested for robbing a store. At his trial he provided a time card and several co-workers that proved he was at work at the time of the robbery. A couple of months later another person was convicted of that robbery and several more. One other time I had a friend that was arrested by a over zealous officer because he had the same name as a wanted man. Even when two officers at the jail told the arresting officer that they knew for a fact he had the wrong man, he went ahead and arrested him anyway, forcing him to spend the night in jail.
Her lawyer, if it’s not a public defender, will make more money if she pleads not guilty – more time involved for him/her – and she will probably be offered a plea deal now – so she will get a lighter sentence. Does Florida have the 3 time loser rule?
David Huie Green ,
I am not sure of what crime it is that you are confessing to, but it’s the criminals who plan to plead not-guilty and then depend on juries to do the wrong thing and set them free who have made jury trials obsolete.
Our law enforcement officers make the determination of guilt or innocence at the time of arrest. We should free our judges to devote all of their time to handing out fair sentences based on the evidence.
Replying to jack the tape does exist I saw it on WEAR TV.
Well , if she is on tape selling crack , to an undercover deputy. . . . . .her plea of not guilty , is just wishful thinking on her part . If this tape actually exists , it will be a very short trial .
Oh , and I think she is old enough , to have known better .
Is she serious? The laws still apply no matter what our age. Sorry, no pity party here.
REGARDING:
“I think it is a travesty that someone like this could be allowed to plead not guilty. ”
I intend to plead NOT GUILTY if I am ever charged with anything, even if there’s a thousand witnesses and five video cameras taping the crime.
David depending on juries
to do the wrong thing
Faye,
I don’t think our law enforcement officers would arrest anyone unless they were guilty. The trial should be for the judge to examine the evidence to determine how long the sentence should be.
Just because you can find a bunch of websites that say we should let all these people go doesn’t make it right. Surely you are smarter than that. Don’t believe everything you read. Think it through for yourself. You have the ability to make up your own mind.
What I think is sad here is the fact that this woman is 87 years old and is deeply involved with drug trafficking….who is HER supplier? Her supplier is who law enforcement should be pursuing. She should be in a lock down unit of a nursing home, not in jail…it is obvious she cannot clearly think for herself anymore.
OMG…. ole G,she back again….if u keep doing bad G this is what u expect…granma u need 2 do your time and quit selling!! pleading guilty,dang c’mon now face up 2 your charges….quit selling crack,don’t u know it kills,rofl….sorry every1 but this po lil women cracks me! ROFL
Faye…So you think she is not guilty ? Facts speak for themselves
Wendy,
Before posting ignorant comments about how people should not “be allowed” to plead not guilty, you ought to learn something about criminal procedure. A brief visit to any number of websites could prove illuminating. Or maybe you would just like us to throw out the Constitution and presume everyone guilty upon arrest?
Cut the crap and let the old lady do time and see if she keeps getting into trouble. She knows what she is doing, and she is no better than anyone else
i thought only the young did this–old habits die hard i guess
Sadly, some stereotypes just take a long time to go away and die.
False Hope and Pocket Change seems to be the current mantra.
Not to worry folks, I’m sure the NAACP has an excuse all lined up for her defense.
she looks so happy.
I think it is a travesty that someone like this could be allowed to plead not guilty. We need to change the law to make it much more difficult for criminals to plead not guilty.
just can’t seem to give up the old bad habits, huh?