My DUI Charges Dropped! A Great Argument

As I understand it, on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:20:13 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:24:51 -0500,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most prosecutors are honestly interested in justice.
>>>
>>>Not in traffic court.
>
>> I've never seen a prosecutor in traffic court. Just the
>> defendant, judge and the officer who issued the citation.
>
>I have.
>
>>>> When
>>>> it's clear that the evidence shows the defendant is innocent, the
>>>> prosecutor will drop the charges since justice will not be served by
>>>> convicting an innocent person.
>>>
>>>In traffic court he just lies.
>
>> What jurisdiction has a prosecutor for traffic court? I'm not
>> saying there are none, but I've never heard of it before.
>
>C(r)ook county IL.

Must be something new since 1992, when I moved from
Chicagoland.

>
>
>>>> I'm sure it happens every day in the
>>>> United States.
>
>>>Yep. Lying in court happens everyday.
>
>> Which has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.
>
>It shows a disinterest in justice.
>

But it has NOTHING to do with my statement that the prosecutor
will drop the charges when the evidence shows the defendant is
innocent. Your reply to that portion of my post is a complete non
sequitur.

--
Kent
"Fly away in my rocket
You no need put money in my pocket"
-- Zladko "Zlad" Vladcik

In article >, Kent Wills wrote:

>>C(r)ook county IL.
>
> Must be something new since 1992, when I moved from
> Chicagoland.

No. even at the mas cattle calls there's one there. He usually just
stands there doing nothing.


>>> Which has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.
>>
>>It shows a disinterest in justice.
>>
>
> But it has NOTHING to do with my statement that the prosecutor
> will drop the charges when the evidence shows the defendant is
> innocent. Your reply to that portion of my post is a complete non
> sequitur.

You missed the point, if you're innocent in traffic court, the charges
aren't getting dropped.

In article >,
Kent Wills > wrote:

> Most prosecutors are honestly interested in justice. When
>it's clear that the evidence shows the defendant is innocent, the
>prosecutor will drop the charges since justice will not be served by
>convicting an innocent person. I'm sure it happens every day in the
>United States.

Please. Prosecutors, like cops, don't believe in innocent suspects.
They follow Ed Meese's philosophy of "if they were innocent, they
wouldn't be suspects".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Apr 26, 6:15 pm, Kent Wills > wrote:

> Now I'm wondering about traffic court. In Iowa there is no
> prosecutor for traffic court. And I'm not aware of any other states
> that have one.

Wisconsin and Ohio both use prosecutors in all traffic courts. In
fact, I had no idea there were places where there *wasn't* a
prosecutor used for traffic offenses.

How the hell do they do that? The officer is both a witness for the
state and *represents* the state? No conflicts of interest *there*,
huh?
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Kent Wills > wrote:
>
>> Most prosecutors are honestly interested in justice. When
>>it's clear that the evidence shows the defendant is innocent, the
>>prosecutor will drop the charges since justice will not be served by
>>convicting an innocent person. I'm sure it happens every day in the
>>United States.
>
> Please. Prosecutors, like cops, don't believe in innocent suspects.
> They follow Ed Meese's philosophy of "if they were innocent, they
> wouldn't be suspects".

That model is becoming obsolete and replaced with the 'everyone is
guilty of something model'.

In article .com>,
Motorhead Lawyer > wrote:

>Wisconsin and Ohio both use prosecutors in all traffic courts. In
>fact, I had no idea there were places where there *wasn't* a
>prosecutor used for traffic offenses.
>
>How the hell do they do that? The officer is both a witness for the
>state and *represents* the state? No conflicts of interest *there*,
>huh?

Heck, it's worse than that. In all states, a judge -- who works for the
very same state as the prosecutor and the cop -- decides the case.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> Motorhead Lawyer > wrote:
>
>>Wisconsin and Ohio both use prosecutors in all traffic courts. In
>>fact, I had no idea there were places where there *wasn't* a
>>prosecutor used for traffic offenses.
>>
>>How the hell do they do that? The officer is both a witness for the
>>state and *represents* the state? No conflicts of interest *there*,
>>huh?
>
> Heck, it's worse than that. In all states, a judge -- who works for the
> very same state as the prosecutor and the cop -- decides the case.

That's even becoming obsolete. The newer laws I've been seeing
attempted (some may even be in place) don't even offer that. You're
automatically found guilty by being accused and if you pay a fee larger
than the initial ticket to file an _APPEAL_ you come before a cop
assigned by the local government to judge the appeal. How's that for
fair? Trial by jury my ass.

And then, jury trials... recently had jury duty... sitting in the court
room, watching the selection process. The people called into the box
are being asked by the judge if they can render a judgement under the
law as the judge tells it to them. Mind you, no reading of their own of
the law, no judgement on their own if the law is constitutional, just
apply it as he says so.

The new soviet amerika... isn't it grand?

As I understand it, on 27 Apr 2007 11:30:07 -0700, Motorhead Lawyer
> wrote:

>On Apr 26, 6:15 pm, Kent Wills > wrote:
>
>> Now I'm wondering about traffic court. In Iowa there is no
>> prosecutor for traffic court. And I'm not aware of any other states
>> that have one.
>
>Wisconsin and Ohio both use prosecutors in all traffic courts. In
>fact, I had no idea there were places where there *wasn't* a
>prosecutor used for traffic offenses.

We have both learned something new.

>
>How the hell do they do that? The officer is both a witness for the
>state and *represents* the state? No conflicts of interest *there*,
>huh?

I Iowa it's similar in some respects to small claims. Each
side presents it's version of events and presents any evidence they
have. The judge rules based on the testimony and evidence.

--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

As I understand it, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:09:59 -0500,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Kent Wills > wrote:
>
>> Most prosecutors are honestly interested in justice. When
>>it's clear that the evidence shows the defendant is innocent, the
>>prosecutor will drop the charges since justice will not be served by
>>convicting an innocent person. I'm sure it happens every day in the
>>United States.
>
>Please. Prosecutors, like cops, don't believe in innocent suspects.

If the evidence shows the defendant is innocent, they aren't
going to waste time and resources on the case. They'll drop the
charges.

>They follow Ed Meese's philosophy of "if they were innocent, they
>wouldn't be suspects".

Being a suspect means only that one is a suspect. It doesn't
mean the person was in any way involved. Once it's clear the person
is innocent, said person ceases to be a suspect until such time as
there is evidence to show they should be.

--
Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!

As I understand it, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:21:58 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Kent Wills > wrote:
>>
>>> Most prosecutors are honestly interested in justice. When
>>>it's clear that the evidence shows the defendant is innocent, the
>>>prosecutor will drop the charges since justice will not be served by
>>>convicting an innocent person. I'm sure it happens every day in the
>>>United States.
>>
>> Please. Prosecutors, like cops, don't believe in innocent suspects.
>> They follow Ed Meese's philosophy of "if they were innocent, they
>> wouldn't be suspects".
>
>That model is becoming obsolete and replaced with the 'everyone is
>guilty of something model'.
>

Most are guilty of *something*. Odds are very good I've gone
over the speed limit a time or two in my life. While it would be only
a few MPH each time, it would make me guilty of breaking the law(s)
about speeding.

--
Kent
The irony of life is that, by the time
you're old enough to know your way
around, you're not going anywhere.