[madgunsmith]

Stupid client goes to someone else's school. Stupid client beats up another kid.

Police arrive. The cops charge stupid client with assault. The assault charge is laid pursuant to the criminal code. The cops also charge stupid client with engaging in a prohibited activity pursuant to the Trespassing Act.

So, we have a criminal statute and a non-criminal statute. Two different charges, two different courthouses. So smart counsel advises stupid client to plead guilty to the charge laid under the Trespassing Act. He pleads guilty and the facts are read in. The facts are that he committed trespass and then beat up the other kid.

Stupid client gets a minor fine and walks out of the courtroom a free man.

Stupid client arrives with smart counsel at his criminal trial. Smart counsel has a copy of the transcript of the guilty plea from the earlier matter. Smart counsel tells the judge that stupid client has already been found guilty for the same set of facts and that the court cannot try stupid client twice.

The judge agrees and the charge is thrown out of court. Stupid client walks again. No criminal conviction and no jail. The victim is there and the victim is pissed off.

I say that the victim should be pissed off with the idiot who laid the charges. I offer this case as a specific example as to why the police should take time to learn the law. This isn't rocket science and as a member of the public, it makes me

Mad.

 

[LONG TRA'NG]

thats because aressting cops stupid sargeant or liutenant tried to sound smrt by adding to the Minor Tresspassing charge to make it sound more malicious so it could fly. stupid mistake that unfortunately happens alot. however, some of us supervisors do take the time to learn the local statutes so Stupid Mistakes like that dont happen to often. Bad part is it is the poor street cop that looks like the moron for the whole situation. But believe me it cannot be his fault. all police reports have to be approved by a supervisor. so even if it was the street cops fault for writing the charges up incorrectly the supervisor should have caught it and changed it to be correct. so as it shold be it is the Supervisors Fault.

 

[mlammers]

Amen LongTrang, One of the mottos I have lived by in pressing charges in situations like that is CHARGE the BEST and SAVE the REST. I has saved me from many times having a Perp Plea to misdemeanor cahrges, when felonies were invlolved. Supervisors are paid to mentor and tutor young office to keep that kind of thing from happening, but too often they are oldheads that are close to retirement, and dont care, or think let the guy lean from mistakes. That is OK, except in cases where the victim gets the raw end of the stick. Well off my soapbox.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

I say that the victim should be pissed off with the idiot who laid the charges. I offer this case as a specific example as to why the police should take time to learn the law.

Justice was not served. The victim has a social contract with the rest of society that he, the victim, will allow the police to do their jobs so long as they ensure justice is served. Since justice was not served, the police failed their end of the contract, the social contract is voided, and the victim is now morally free to do what is necessary to recoup his losses (i.e. his ego) from the suspect: vigilantism is sometimes necessary...

Scatch Maroo

 

[mele]

Scatch, tongue in cheek I'm assuming?

Justice was served, he plead guilty and was charged for the tresspassing crimes. You cannot try a man for the same crimes twice, its in the constitution, 5th admendment. It was a mistake, hopefully one that is not repeated, at least by the officer responsible.

MEL

 

[muzzleblast]

You can with the difference between criminal and civil action though, right? Not that you can make a lot of money through lawsuits here.

Check out OJ. Not guilty in criminal court, guilty in civil court. :?

 

[mele]

I'm not a lawyer, but yes, that is true. In this case, they were both criminal.

MEL

 

[muzzleblast]

Even though we can only sue for actual damages here, I would think they could sue this guy in civil court and get a stiffer pay out than what he would have been fined with?

And if he's a minor (dunno if he is) then the assault charges would have been off his record when he turns 18, right?

 

[madgunsmith]

The trespassing charge did not result in a criminal conviction. It resulted in a Mickey Mouse conviction somewhat akin to a traffic ticket. It will not result in him gaining a criminal record.

And the criminal charge was dismissed.

In short the guy walked

Mad.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

Justice was served, he plead guilty and was charged for the tresspassing crimes. You cannot try a man for the same crimes twice, its in the constitution, 5th admendment.

Call it a hunch, but I think this case was tried in a place where the 5th amendment is not necesarily applicable...

I see your point, though. The two crimes are distinctly different, and although the attorney's rhetoric was able to convince the judge of otherwise, that isn't necessarily the case. I still don't think justice was served.

But as Muzzleblast pointed out, the civil reprocussions can be damning.

Scatch Maroo

 

[madgunsmith]

Not rhetoric. Just a thousand year old proven common law principle.

You cannnot punish a man twice for the same crime. And please don't confuse a civil case with a criminal one.

The victim of the assault can still sue stupid client for battery. But the state cannot punish stupid client twice.

The thousand year old common law principle is called "autrefois convict"


Mad.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

Not rhetoric. Just a thousand year old proven common law principle.

You cannnot punish a man twice for the same crime.

Two different crimes: trespassing, and assault. Although a description of the assault was included with the trespassing charge, the two CRIMES (not charges) were trespassing and assault: he was punished for one crime and not punished for another crime, simply because of the rhetoric involved in the charges.

It's semantics. There is a distinction between the charges drawn by the DA, and the crimes commited by the stupid client. Although the charges may have been equal, the crimes were not, and so although the state cannot punish a person twice on the same charges, it can, and should, punish them on different crimes.

Apparently the court system chooses not to prosecute crimes, and charges, is a serious flaw that should be amended.

Scatch Maroo

 

[muzzleblast]

Bad police work and bad work by the Prosecution as well. I'm not Mad but I took a bit of law in college. As I understand our law, the Prosecution has to show the Defense it's case before the trial and the Defense doesn't have to show jack. I can just see Mad reading the charges and formulating his master plan I must admit, wether or not one thinks justice was served, the law was, and it was some crafty manuevering.

About bad work by the Crown Prosecutor, I believe they have final say on what charges (that the cops lay) actually end up being contested in court. He should have stuck with battery and ditched the lesser charge.

Is the penalty for battery harsher than the tresspassing fine?

I hadn't known the legal term for that "Double jeopardy" bit Mad, but it made sense as soon as I read the French. "Convicted another time"...Most of what I learned was about liability.

 

[spade]

I learned alot about liability in my school as well, they kept blaming everything on me. They taught me quickly that everything was my fault.

(most of the time it was.)

:twisted: :roll:

 

[muzzleblast]

hahaha thats what they say! I'm pretty sure there was tons of things they were nice and culpable for.

 

[madgunsmith]

Tresspassing vs. Assault.


The trespassing related charge was that he committed a prohibited act to wit assault on the premises of the school board. Part of the charge under the Trespass Act concerned the prohibited act, namely the assault.

So once he plead guilty to these facts he couldn't be punished for it twice.

Mad