Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[Teallaura]

Apologies, I didn't see that question directed to me before.

I would imagine the DA would be subject to an instant recall election. It would remain beyond the scope of the judiciary's powers for a judge to decide that he was going to make prosecutorial decisions.

I don't know what specifics led to this particular court scene. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand, however.

--Sam

Not all states have recall elections - nor are they triggered automatically.


The real answer is that in such an egregious case, she gets charged with misconduct, removed from office, possibly disbarred and possibly jailed.

[Teallaura]

"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

Nice try - but the real basis is 'we don't wanna enforce these laws' which is NOT grounds for dismissal.

Why do you hate defendants?

[Sparko]

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."

What is the basis of your expertise in the law, Sam?

[Teallaura]

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

The DA's desire to legislate is not grounds for dismissal. This defendant should not have been charged because ____. "I'm unwilling" isn't a valid answer.

I'm not chasing your rabbits for you. She petitioned - there's no reason to petition UNLESS the court has the right to decide.

[Adrift]

Just out of curiosity, and in no way argumentative, why are you the only poster who speaks first, then quotes the other person?

Glad I'm not the only one scratching my head about this. It throws me off every time too. In a direct discussion between him and 4 other active posters it's like "wait, who is he replying to? Oh, ok." I mean, it's not a big deal I suppose, maybe slightly bothersome. I'm assuming he's doing it more for himself than for the others readers.

[Cow Poke]

Glad I'm not the only one scratching my head about this. It throws me off every time too. In a direct discussion between him and 4 other active posters it's like "wait, who is he replying to? Oh, ok." I mean, it's not a big deal I suppose, maybe slightly bothersome. I'm assuming he's doing it more for himself than for the others readers.

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!

[Cow Poke]

I'm reminded of that Oath Keepers thing that a whole bunch of LEOs got into awhile back and how Conservative sheriffs were arguing that they were the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution.

We've been seeing exactly this kind of thing for forever in its extreme form, just more often applied to unlawful arrests, illegal seizures, and the like. By contrast, a DA making prosecutorial decisions regarding low-level crime, backed by empirical study, seems ... light.

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

Sam, I really don't need that condescending "reminder" - I know exactly what this case is about. This is why discussions with you get so tiresome - you get hyper-focused on some particular aspect of a situation to the neglect of the overall impact.

[Cow Poke]

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.

Gee, if only the DA had thunk that up before filing.

[Sam]

Gee, if only the DA had thunk that up before filing.

We don't know the specifics of how things proceeded to this point but, yes, if the prosecutor is at fault in that regard, they're at fault.

Does not change the constitutional issue at hand, though.

[Cow Poke]

We don't know the specifics of how things proceeded to this point but, yes, if the prosecutor is at fault in that regard, they're at fault.

Does not change the constitutional issue at hand, though.

And what, specifically, is the constitutional issue, Sam?

[Sam]

Sam, I really don't need that condescending "reminder" - I know exactly what this case is about. This is why discussions with you get so tiresome - you get hyper-focused on some particular aspect of a situation to the neglect of the overall impact.

The only thing I'm "hyper-focused" on here is the merit of the case in question. Someone asking "Well, how would you feel if this was about a rapist?!" is not advancing the issue at hand but rather deflecting from it by way of emotional argument.

Folks need to argue that the constitution and case law supports a judge overruling the district attorney on what the DA will or will not prosecute when it comes to low-level, non-violent offenders.

So far, people aren't arguing that. So if we all want to agree that the judge overstepped his constitutional and legal bounds, great. That's the extent of my interest here.

--Sam

[Adrift]

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!

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.}

[Sam]

Glad I'm not the only one scratching my head about this. It throws me off every time too. In a direct discussion between him and 4 other active posters it's like "wait, who is he replying to? Oh, ok." I mean, it's not a big deal I suppose, maybe slightly bothersome. I'm assuming he's doing it more for himself than for the others readers.

It's not very different, in my mind, from people who just post a quick reply without quoting who they're replying to. In a meaningful sense, it's the better method because it eliminates confusion.

[Cow Poke]

The only thing I'm "hyper-focused" on here is the merit of the case in question. Someone asking "Well, how would you feel if this was about a rapist?!" is not advancing the issue at hand but rather deflecting from it by way of emotional argument.

Folks need to argue that the constitution and case law supports a judge overruling the district attorney on what the DA will or will not prosecute when it comes to low-level, non-violent offenders.

So far, people aren't arguing that. So if we all want to agree that the judge overstepped his constitutional and legal bounds, great. That's the extent of my interest here.

--Sam

The system there is obviously broken, Sam, and the judge obviously did not do this in a vacuum. Right or wrong, he was doing it in response to the DA's office -- which normally works WITH the police, not against them -- has been hijacked by the social justice agenda.

And PLEASE don't tell us what "folks need to argue".

[Sam]

And what, specifically, is the constitutional issue, Sam?

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