Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[seer]

Of course the upshot here is that the straight pride marchers were completely peaceful and the left once again had a conniption fit! Idiots...

[Sam]

Sam, Rollins asked the court for a dismissal - if the DA has the need to ask, prosecution is already underway. If the DA has the right to ask, the court has the right to decline.

The court has every right to decide whether charges can be dismissed - courts across the country do it hourly.

Find it in the case law; where a nolle prosequi sometimes (not always) requires judicial consent, the judiciary needs a sufficient reason (e.g., corruption) to refuse. The court does not have "every right".

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Right. That was my understanding as well, so I'm not entirely sure what Sam is going on about.

He got it from Rollins. She seems to think the decision to prosecute is hers to retract and the court - which she petitioned - has no say.

It's insane - if upheld, the court could not dismiss when the DA oversteps or doesn't provide a sufficiently strong case.

[Sparko]

The prosecutors' characterization of the group in question is that they were non-violent protesters. To the extent people are saying otherwise, they've got a burden of evidence to meet.

--Sam

It was YOUR characterization I was responding to:

And a reminder that the case we're talking about here doesn't involve theft or burglary or violence. Non-violent protesters. Is it really the hill people want to pick when it comes to arguing against prosecutorial discretion?

[Teallaura]

Find it in the case law; where a nolle prosequi sometimes (not always) requires judicial consent, the judiciary needs a sufficient reason (e.g., corruption) to refuse. The court does not have "every right".

--Sam

Do not need it - ROLLINS PETITIONED THE COURT. That's an EXPLICIT acknowledgement that the decision to dismiss belongs to the court.

Why do you hate defendants?

[Teallaura]

A prosecutor's job includes exercising prosecutorial discretion. If the public interest is better served by not pursuing certain offenses, it's wholly within a prosecutor's power to make that decision. It is, quite explicitly, what we elect them to do.

--Sam

Prosecutors DO NOT have discretion over which laws to enforce.

[Teallaura]

Regardless, it's not for a judge to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. That's antithetical to the very nature of the judiciary.

It is the court's right to decide if it will or will not grant relief. The DA PETITIONED the court. The court has every right to decline.

[Sparko]

Do not need it - ROLLINS PETITIONED THE COURT. That's an EXPLICIT acknowledgement that the decision to dismiss belongs to the court.

Why do you hate defendants?

Yeah that's the way I have seen it in court. If the two sides come to a settlement for instance, the plaintiff will inform the court and ask that the case be closed. Or in criminal cases the prosecutor can make a deal and tell the court it no longer wishes to prosecute and ask the judge to dismiss. But it is the judge who makes the decision once it is in a court.

It seems silly that a judge would NOT dismiss if the prosecutor decides not to prosecute, like in this case. But it seems to be still the Judges decision once it is in a court. That is why I was asking how they got to be in court. If her policy is to not charge people for certain crimes, it should never even get to arraignment.

[Teallaura]

The State can, at any time, decide not to continue with charges.

From the reporting I've seen, I can't even tell if this happened after or during arraignment. But it doesn't matter. If the prosecution decides a minute before trial that it won't prosecute, it can make that decision. And absent some extraordinary showing of injustice, a judge doesn't have the authority to override.

--Sam

No, it can't.Once prosecution has begun, the state needs the court's consent to discontinues proceedings - and it must provide grounds to do so.

[Sam]

Yeah that's the way I have seen it in court. If the two sides come to a settlement for instance, the plaintiff will inform the court and ask that the case be closed. Or in criminal cases the prosecutor can make a deal and tell the court it no longer wishes to prosecute and ask the judge to dismiss. But it is the judge who makes the decision once it is in a court.

It seems silly that a judge would NOT dismiss if the prosecutor decides not to prosecute, like in this case. But it seems to be still the Judges decision once it is in a court. That is why I was asking how they got to be in court. If her policy is to not charge people for certain crimes, it should never even get to arraignment.

Not just "seems silly". The judge has to have a very good reason to deny the prosecution's decision to drop charges. The judge can't just decide "Nah, I want to see this play out in court."

[Sam]

No, it can't.Once prosecution has begun, the state needs the court's consent to discontinues proceedings - and it must provide grounds to do so.

The prosecution did provide grounds to drop charges: these are non-violent offenders and the State would be better served if alternative methods were pursued. The State doesn't have to extensively justify those grounds to a judge.

Which is why you're not going to find case law supporting an action like this in MA and why a defense attorney was thrown in jail overnight for the temerity of providing case law contradicting the judge's decision.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Yeah that's the way I have seen it in court. If the two sides come to a settlement for instance, the plaintiff will inform the court and ask that the case be closed. Or in criminal cases the prosecutor can make a deal and tell the court it no longer wishes to prosecute and ask the judge to dismiss. But it is the judge who makes the decision once it is in a court.

It seems silly that a judge would NOT dismiss if the prosecutor decides not to prosecute, like in this case. But it seems to be still the Judges decision once it is in a court. That is why I was asking how they got to be in court. If her policy is to not charge people for certain crimes, it should never even get to arraignment.

According to Seer's article, the DA's office made a mistake and charged everyone, including those charged with crimes the DA doesn't want prosecuted.

Haven't seen much else but it looks like she doesn't have grounds for the dismissal (I don't wanna is not adequate).

[Mountain Man]

The judge has to have a very good reason to deny the prosecution's decision to drop charges.

For instance, the defendant actually broke the law and should face a reasonable punishment.

Now let's suppose the DA used this same reasoning in an attempt not to prosecute the violent offenders, Would you still be crying that the judge overstepped his bounds if he refused a request to dismiss the charges, or to give the defendants the proverbial "slap on the wrist" as punishment?

[Sam]

If a judge decides, pre-trial, that "the defendant actually broke the law" then that's a really big problem, dude.

For instance, the defendant actually broke the law and should face a reasonable punishment.

Now let's suppose the DA used this same reasoning in an attempt not to prosecute the violent offenders, Would you still be crying that the judge overstepped his bounds if he refused a request to dismiss the charges, or to give the defendants the proverbial "slap on the wrist" as punishment?

[Sam]

"We screwed up and should not have charged this person with this offense" is definitely, without a doubt, a reasonable justification the State can use to not continue with a prosecution.

I'm not sure what's in the water today but y'all are not talking like conservatives. Or constitutionalists. Or "small government" aficionados.

--Sam

According to Seer's article, the DA's office made a mistake and charged everyone, including those charged with crimes the DA doesn't want prosecuted.

Haven't seen much else but it looks like she doesn't have grounds for the dismissal (I don't wanna is not adequate).