Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[Teallaura]

Yeah, and it's another little odd quirk to me when somebody has to sign every email "Sam" or "Jim". Like - we KNOW who's posting it!

I think they do it just to get under my skin. Well, it doesn't work. It doesn't work, I tell ya! Doesn't bother me in the least!

Er, this was a suggestion from years ago - I can't remember who suggested it but the idea was to reduce the anonymity and the aggression. I know RTT was a signatory and I think Mossy was. Pretty sure Ox started doing that then. Sam picked it up later - if I recall correctly it predated him.

[Mountain Man]

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

You really think that judges walk into a trial wholly ignorant of the case? They typically have a pretty good handle on the matter before they even step foot in the courtroom.

[Teallaura]

Under what authority does the judiciary compel the prosecution of a defendant when the State determines that it won't bring or continue charges.

The DA began prosecution and cannot discontinue without the court's consent.

[Cow Poke]

Under what authority does the judiciary compel the prosecution of a defendant when the State determines that it won't bring or continue charges.

A little clarification on that last part, there, sir.... it wasn't "bring or continue" --- it was "continue". (thought you'd slip that by, eh?)

- Perry

[Cow Poke]

Er, this was a suggestion from years ago - I can't remember who suggested it but the idea was to reduce the anonymity and the aggression. I know RTT was a signatory and I think Mossy was. Pretty sure Ox started doing that then. Sam picked it up later - if I recall correctly it predated him.

Lemme guess, it was Jaltus!

[Teallaura]

You really think that judges walk into a trial wholly ignorant of the case? They typically have a pretty good handle on the matter before they even step foot in the courtroom.

He's just dodging, but his point is correct. It makes no difference - the judge should not have an opinion on guilt or innocence.

BUT the judge SHOULD have an opinion on the sufficiency of the case. If the case is sufficient and no legal grounds for dismissal are put forth, then the case proceeds.

[Sam]

So here's how I see this thing going down, though probably not before I light out for the prairies again:

State supreme court overrules Suffolk judge rather quickly. If not, defendants make an emergency plea seeking some sort of relief, on the basis that the State wants to drop the charges and that they'll be irrevocably harmed by continuing a prosecution even the State thinks is unwarranted and the arraignment was unconstiutional. Defendants win plea, charges are dismissed.

I am not aware of any circumstance in memory where a judge forced the State to prosecute a low-level offense case that the State was unwilling to prosecute and certainly not aware of any situation where a judge did so for any case while refusing to articulate a reason.

I can't think of any conservative principle or legal theory that would find this remotely acceptable. I can understand that the modern conservative movement is anything but and I do see plenty of authoritarian desire for punishment and order going on.

But that's not going to carry the day.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Lemme guess, it was Jaltus!

No, but he was around...



Don't confuse me - I'm still trying to remember.

[Teallaura]

So here's how I see this thing going down, though probably not before I light out for the prairies again:

State supreme court overrules Suffolk judge rather quickly. If not, defendants make an emergency plea seeking some sort of relief, on the basis that the State wants to drop the charges and that they'll be irrevocably harmed by continuing a prosecution even the State thinks is unwarranted and the arraignment was unconstiutional. Defendants win plea, charges are dismissed.

I am not aware of any circumstance in memory where a judge forced the State to prosecute a low-level offense case that the State was unwilling to prosecute and certainly not aware of any situation where a judge did so for any case while refusing to articulate a reason.

I can't think of any conservative principle or legal theory that would find this remotely acceptable. I can understand that the modern conservative movement is anything but and I do see plenty of authoritarian desire for punishment and order going on.

But that's not going to carry the day.

--Sam

Why do you hate defendants?

[Sam]

I find this question ironic since it's the defendants who are suffering harm by being arraigned and potentially forced to pay legal fees to defend against a charge the State doesn't actually want to bring.

--Sam

Why do you hate defendants?

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile, I love this amazingly unbiased and fair and balanced coverage from our friends at Reason.

What's odd about this whole thing, even from this very fair and balanced [cough sputter] account is that it seems that arrests were made, but this article seems to suggest that these prosecutions were before the judge without the DA's bringing them.

It seems to come back to --- did the DA bring these charges to the court, or not?
IF not, how did they get there?
If so, WHY did they get there?

It's a bind moggling thang.

[Teallaura]

I find this question ironic since it's the defendants who are suffering harm by being arraigned and potentially forced to pay legal fees to defend against a charge the State doesn't actually want to bring.

--Sam

Taking the power to decide on dismissal from the courts takes the power to stop unjust prosecution from the courts. So, answer the question.

[Cow Poke]

I find this question ironic since it's the defendants who are suffering harm by being arraigned and potentially forced to pay legal fees to defend against a charge the State doesn't actually want to bring.

--Sam

How did they get arraigned, Sam?

An arraignment is a court proceeding at which a criminal defendant is formally advised of the charges against him and is asked to enter a plea to the charges. In many states, the court may also decide at arraignment whether the defendant will be released pending trial.

Some states require arraignments in all felony and misdemeanor cases – any case in which the defendant faces possible incarceration, whether in jail or prison. Some states require arraignments only in felony cases.

[Teallaura]

Meanwhile, I love this amazingly unbiased and fair and balanced coverage from our friends at Reason.

What's odd about this whole thing, even from this very fair and balanced [cough sputter] account is that it seems that arrests were made, but this article seems to suggest that these prosecutions were before the judge without the DA's bringing them.

It seems to come back to --- did the DA bring these charges to the court, or not?
IF not, how did they get there?
If so, WHY did they get there?

It's a bind moggling thang.

Rollins stated these defendants weren't supposed to be arraigned - but had been. Charges came from her office.

[Sam]

Reportedly, the judge refused the DA's request that they not be arraigned.

How did they get arraigned, Sam?