My DUI Charges Dropped! A Great Argument

As I understand it, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:40:46 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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.

That could be. The one and only time I've been in traffic
court was due to failing to make a complete stop at a stop sign in Des
Plains. I was guilty of it, and didn't even try to pretend I wasn't.
When I went to court there was me, the officer, the judge and
about 30 of my fellow bad drivers. It's certainly possible one of the
bad drivers wasn't a bad driver (or, at least wasn't there for such)
and was with the DA's office. Since I was guilty, plead guilty, paid
my fine and went home. I didn't have cause to interact with too many
others in the court room.
Mind you, they could have simply issued me a citation
indicating I could pay the fine (and by doing so plead guilty) OR
appear in court to fight it. It would have made far more sense to me.

>
>
>>>> 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.
>

The evidence must not have show the person in question was
innocent. It's possible they could be found not guilty, but that's
not the same thing.

--
Kent
"I most stonger than Darth Vapor!"
-- Zladko "Zlad" Vladcik

In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
> 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*.

Only because the government has made such that we cannot make it
through our daily lives without violating some law that's on the books.

> 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.

Wonder why the government set it so low?

(Brent P) wrote in
news
> 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.

Since you claim to have seen this, could we have some details? Perhaps
the text of the law and the jurisdiction you're complaining about?

>
> 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?

You must have some romantic ideal of the jury system that never existed.
Jurors aren't supposed to "read" the law or determine whether it's
Constitutional. They're supposed to determine the facts. That their
judgment cannot be called to account should they decide to become lawyers
or justices doesn't change their proper role.

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.

Not one prosecutor I know - and I work in an office of hundreds -
believes this. Everyone I know always has their antenna up for the
possibility someone arrested is innocent - it does happen from time to
time, and I don't know a single prosecutor who thinks that someone is
guilty just because they were arrested.

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

Who is "they"? Like I said, no one I ever met, and I imagine I know
many more prosecutors than you.

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.

And if the defendant is indigent, he has an attorney for a public
defender organization that has a contract with the state to provide
defense counsel to the defendants. It's often all paid for my the
state. But it doesn't mean everyone's on the same side.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> 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.

You're not entitled to a jury trial for a speeding ticket. Juries were
never intended to be used in cases such as those.


> 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.

That is, and always has been, the role of the jury.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Wonder why the government set it so low?

It doesn't matter _why_. "Why" a law is passed is a political question,
not a legal one.

As I understand it, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:13:08 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>> 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*.
>
>Only because the government has made such that we cannot make it
>through our daily lives without violating some law that's on the books.

Yes, and?

>
>> 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.
>
>Wonder why the government set it so low?
>

Why doesn't really matter. The fact is the speed limit is set
at X. If one goes over X, as I'm sure I have more than once in my
life, one is guilty of speeding.
I'm guessing you have a problem with the current speed limits.
If I'm wrong, let me know.
If you want them changed, or revoked, lobby to have it done.
I don't see you being successful, but you aren't out a great deal for
trying. And it's *possible* you will be able to convince those in
authority to either raise the limits or repeal them all together.

--
Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!

Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:13:08 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>>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*.
>>
>>Only because the government has made such that we cannot make it
>>through our daily lives without violating some law that's on the books.
>
>
> Yes, and?
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Wonder why the government set it so low?
>>
>
>
> Why doesn't really matter.

Actually, it does - it would determine if the reason is incompetence or
actual ill intent.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Kent Wills wrote:

>>Only because the government has made such that we cannot make it
>>through our daily lives without violating some law that's on the books.

> Yes, and?

You really can't figure it out? By defining everyone as a lawbreaker it
creates an end run around much of the bill of rights.

>>Wonder why the government set it so low?

> Why doesn't really matter. The fact is the speed limit is set
> at X. If one goes over X, as I'm sure I have more than once in my
> life, one is guilty of speeding.
> I'm guessing you have a problem with the current speed limits.
> If I'm wrong, let me know.
> If you want them changed, or revoked, lobby to have it done.
> I don't see you being successful, but you aren't out a great deal for
> trying. And it's *possible* you will be able to convince those in
> authority to either raise the limits or repeal them all together.


Another authoritarian heard from. You want things to come from
authority. I should beg and bribe authority to change things to my
liking. The idea that things should be done to best known engineering
practice doesn't even enter into your mind. It's just do what authority
says... beg of the leaders. What has become of this nation? Bunch of
sheeple.