Of course the upshot here is that the straight pride marchers were completely peaceful and the left once again had a conniption fit! Idiots...
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Justice For Thee But Not For Me...
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostSam, 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.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostRight. That was my understanding as well, so I'm not entirely sure what Sam is going on about.
It's insane - if upheld, the court could not dismiss when the DA oversteps or doesn't provide a sufficiently strong case."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThe 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
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostFind 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
Why do you hate defendants?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostA 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"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostRegardless, 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."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostDo 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?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThe 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"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYeah 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."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo, 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.
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"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYeah 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.
Haven't seen much else but it looks like she doesn't have grounds for the dismissal (I don't wanna is not adequate)."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThe judge has to have a very good reason to deny the prosecution's decision to drop charges.
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?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
If a judge decides, pre-trial, that "the defendant actually broke the law" then that's a really big problem, dude.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostFor 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?"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
"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
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostAccording 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)."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 06:29 AM
|
32 responses
167 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:40 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 08:13 PM
|
13 responses
80 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 10:31 PM
|
||
Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:12 AM
|
27 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 08:54 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-15-2024, 12:53 PM
|
52 responses
273 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 11:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 06-14-2024, 08:57 PM
|
107 responses
497 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Terraceth
Today, 11:14 PM
|
Comment