Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[Cow Poke]

I've heard courtrooms called "revolving door" before but never heard of a one-way courtroom door: if the DA's office screwed up somewhere, that's notable.

Sam, the DA's office is being ACTIVIST - usurping the right of city council (or whoever) to codify laws. You can't seem to get that -- it is not the DA's office to decide which laws will be enforced.

But the people hadn't been arraigned and were arraigned above the DA's objection.

They had been charged -- arraignment doesn't change that. All the arraignment does is determine whether or not the case moves to trial.

If folks are saying that the judge was within his rights,

I haven't said that.

they've got to argue that a judge can force the arraignment and prosecution of someone who has been charged -- meaning that the prosecutor's office is effectively without discretion.

Seems significantly worse than silly.

--Sam

The prosecutor's office exercised their discretion when they CHARGED the accused, Sam. They apparently goofed. Maybe they should figure out what their actual JOB is, and focus on that!

[Mountain Man]

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.

The judge knows which way he's leaning on guilt or innocence and whether or not the case has a reasonable chance of successful prosecution. All of that plays into whether or not he will accept a motion to dismiss.

[DesertBerean]

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.

John Powell too...

[oxmixmudd]

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!

I've always signed my name that I can remember. I dont remember starting to do it, but then again I've been here a while. To me it's a matter of owning what I've written, good or bad.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I've always signed my name that I can remember. I dont remember starting to do it, but then again I've been here a while. To me it's a matter of owning what I've written, good or bad.

Jim

Fair enough!

[Sparko]

stamp.jpg

Haha. Yep. Strangely, it's usually something I've seen older folks do. Like, they think internet forums are sorta like mailing letters or something.

{though I'm assuming Sam is my age or younger, so maybe he's the exception to the rule.}

Dear Adrift,

I am writing in response to your letter calling me old. I feel that such language is rude and uncalled for in a civilized forum such as Theologyweb.

I hope this letter finds you doing fine. I look forward to your reply.

Yours truly,

Sparko the Younger.

[Cow Poke]

Here is a little more background...

The dispute between Rollins and Sinnott began Tuesday when the judge denied her request to dismiss charges in at least seven of the 36 cases stemming from the parade.

Rollins promised she'd take other steps to get the charges dropped.

Of the 35 defendants that have been arraigned so far, charges against 10 have been dropped.

On Wednesday, Sinnott held defense lawyer Susan Church in contempt after he denied Rollins' office request to drop charges against her client, who was a counterprotester.

Sinnott had Church handcuffed and detained for about two hours because she began reading from case law suggesting he had no authority to overrule Rollins' decision not to prosecute the case.

Naturally, that sounds extremely harsh - to have a defense attorney handcuffed and detained for two hours, but we weren't there. I've seen some defense attorneys get way out of control "reading case law" as in lecturing the judge and not allowing him even to speak - but I wasn't there, and don't know how "out of order" she may or may not have been. If the judge held her in contempt of court, and she kept "reading", she would be detained. On that, I don't know.

A labor union representing Boston police officers, meanwhile, cheered Sinnott's hardline stance.

The Boston Police Patrolmen's Association had called for the prosecutions of everyone arrested at the parade after, it says, officers were pelted with rocks, bottles of urine and other unidentified materials as the parade wound down, injuring at least four officers.

"We think that these offenders, most of them not residents of Boston, came here as agitators," Lawrence Calderone, the union's vice president told The Boston Globe on Tuesday. They came here to "create havoc," he said.

If, in fact, these were out-of-town protesters in Boston to cause havoc, it could be seen as yet another assault on police powers, as we've seen people doing anything from 'dowsing cops' with water or urine or other liquids, or walking up to a patrol car and shooting them dead.

It's possible that the police and the judge saw this as a "we have to stop this crap" moment. I'm not defending the MANNER in which they acted - just trying to get a sense of this beyond "bad judge!!!".

Mayor Marty Walsh has said the police department is also looking into complaints of police misconduct, including the use of pepper spray on counterprotesters.

The court spat is the latest tussle between Rollins, whose office handles prosecutions in Boston and some surrounding communities, and the state's judicial and law enforcement establishment.

So, as I suggested earlier, I knew this didn't "happen in a vacuum", that there was some history here, and it appears there was.

Shortly after being elected in November, Rollins, a Democrat, listed 15 nonviolent offenses her office would no longer prosecute, including drug possession, shoplifting and trespassing.

While all that sounds noble, think about the impact that shoplifting has, particularly on mom and pop stores, and the fact that a situation is being created where somebody can just walk in and take what they want (mindful of whatever dollar amount limit) knowing they won't be prosecuted. And since they won't be prosecuted, no police officer is going to waste his or her time arresting the guy. That's pretty much what Michael Brown did in St Louis prior to the bogus "hands up don't shoot" lie.

Also, note that this article says that she made the list of non-proscutables AFTER she was elected... so the idea that she campaigned on this jackassery and was elected with full knowledge of the electorate may be incorrect.

The memo drew criticism from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker's administration, which said the approach could undermine efforts to address the national opioid epidemic and put some crime victims at risk.

Rollins also joined advocates for immigrants and another Massachusetts district attorney in successfully suing to prevent federal immigration agents from carrying out civil arrests in state courthouses.

While her office has moved to drop charges against some of Saturday's protesters, Rollins is still pursuing charges against those facing more serious offenses.

Among them were three men arraigned Tuesday on charges of assault and battery on a police officer. The men were ordered by a judge not to set foot again in Boston except for required court appearances, or else face jail time.

"Make no mistake: some people were appropriately arraigned and will be held accountable for actions that put the safety of the public and law enforcement at risk," Rollins said Tuesday.

I'd love to see, for example, video of the "defense attorney reading case law" --- if that's actually how that went down, or if she was just on a tirade lecturing the judge, and he called her out in contempt.

There's a whole lot more to this case than just "bad judge".

[Sparko]

There's a whole lot more to this case than just "bad judge".

Yeah that was obvious to me too.

No cops want their hands tied by the DA so they have to stand by and watch criminals get away with robbing stores and other crimes. And since trespassing was also on the list, the stores can't even trespass shoplifters to keep them from coming back and stealing more! The DA just legalized theft.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah that was obvious to me too.

No cops want their hands tied by the DA so they have to stand by and watch criminals get away with robbing stores and other crimes. And since trespassing was also on the list, the stores can't even trespass shoplifters to keep them from coming back and stealing more! The DA just legalized theft.

EGGzackly --- and I wonder how many people would NOT have voted for her if they knew she was legalizing theft - which in itself is a usurpation of city council's right to codify ordinances - an abuse of separation of powers.

[Sparko]

EGGzackly --- and I wonder how many people would NOT have voted for her if they knew she was legalizing theft - which in itself is a usurpation of city council's right to codify ordinances - an abuse of separation of powers.

Cops should walk into her office and start stealing stuff out of her purse.

[Cow Poke]

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?

--Sam

If I peed in a cup and poured it over your head, would you say "oh, no biggie, that's a non-violent action"?

[oxmixmudd]

If I peed in a cup and poured it over your head, would you say "oh, no biggie, that's a non-violent action"?

You have a point, but do we know that the people whose charges are being requested be dismissed actually did anything like that?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

And, from the Boston Herald....

“Following a careful review of the facts and circumstances of this case, and after consultation with the Boston Police Department, the Commonwealth respectfully enters this nolle prosequi …,” the filings read.

Boston Municipal Court Judge Richard Sinnott on Wednesday accepted nolle prosequi in 10 of 11 cases, rejecting the action in Roderick Webber’s case, Algarin confirmed. Webber, 45, of Holbrook was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Webber’s cause promoted Rollins to file a 14-page emergency petition with the Supreme Judicial Court Wednesday, seeking to vacate Webber’s arraignment, recognize the nolle prosequi and expunge any criminal record created for Webber in the case.

So, I looked up Roderick (Rod) Webber, and he actually was streaming live on Facebook during the demonstration - I can't provide the link because there's a lot of F-bombs and GD and other profanity. Basically, it looks like both sides were being jackasses, and Webber seemed to manage to be in the middle of it with a bullhorn, always trying to be where the action is. (he claims he was there to document) There's a scene where the police move in and take him down, but it's not clear from the video what instigated that. While he's screaming about being choked and his legs don't work anymore, the video of the cop standing over him - the cop looks quite calm, and even is helping him up. The whole time, Rod is screaming profanities.

I'm assuming he was a little more "active" than his cohorts, and the police singled him out as a leader of the chaos.

[Cow Poke]

You have a point, but do we know that the people whose charges are being requested be dismissed actually did anything like that?

Jim

You posted while I was writing it up, but no -- it's not really clear who did what. It APPEARS, however, that Webber was being a bigger jackass than his buddies, and it's not unusual for the police to move on the guy who appears to be doing the agitating. And, note, that THIS appears to be the case that the defense attorney was going on about - and the ABA website seems to indicate that she was "talking over" the judge in "reading the case law", and that he warned her not to talk over him, and then held her in contempt.

It appears that the majority of the coverage of this whole thing is from a viewpoint sympathetic to the whole Social Justice Warrior nonsense. Also, note that (I believe it was the American Bar Association article) these "progressive District Attorney" people seem to focus on Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston. Like those cities NEED more chaos?

[Sparko]

You have a point, but do we know that the people whose charges are being requested be dismissed actually did anything like that?

Jim

There is a lot we don't know about the case or the history here between the Judge, the cops, and the DA.

The article does say that some of the people arrested were holding weapons, throwing urine and bottles. Some of them were forming lines to block the police from arresting others who were being violent. It was a mess as far as I can tell.