Question for the legal gurus on the board...

[GopherLady]

I'm not even going to comment on Joel (we all know how I feel about him)...but legally, what's going on with Trevor's case? I know there were issues with witnesses, but why is this taking so long? Doesn't he have a right to a speedy trial?

At this point, what can Trevor do, or his lawyer do, to ensure that after his court trial on 6/7/10 - this can be over?

I've love to hear any explanations, as this may be naive of me...but I just don't understand how this has gone on so long.

 

[howeda7]

I do know that the Miami-Dade DA office is notoriously inept. But at this point it's ridiculous and I'd think there's something Trevor's lawyer could do. He does have the right to a speedy trial. Speedy went out the door long ago.

 

[Calgoph]

I'm not even going to comment on Joel (we all know how I feel about him)...but legally, what's going on with Trevor's case? I know there were issues with witnesses, but why is this taking so long? Doesn't he have a right to a speedy trial?

At this point, what can Trevor do, or his lawyer do, to ensure that after his court trial on 6/7/10 - this can be over?

I've love to hear any explanations, as this may be naive of me...but I just don't understand how this has gone on so long.

I'm not a legal guru, but you might want to check the link I just posted in another thread about the right to a speedy trial in Florida.

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showpost.php?p=223187&postcount=36

 

[GopherFish]

I'm not even going to comment on Joel (we all know how I feel about him)...but legally, what's going on with Trevor's case? I know there were issues with witnesses, but why is this taking so long? Doesn't he have a right to a speedy trial?

At this point, what can Trevor do, or his lawyer do, to ensure that after his court trial on 6/7/10 - this can be over?

I've love to hear any explanations, as this may be naive of me...but I just don't understand how this has gone on so long.

Well, it seems all the delays are related to Trevor's side. It seems Trevor's case is built around finding witnesses to support his alibi and this may not be going as well as Trevor's side hoped. Looking at the docket, I don't see depositions from some of the individuals who had been mentioned in the press as potential alibi witnesses. So the delays are related to getting alibi witnesses or for tactical reasons.

 

[Tater]

None of us have all the information, but it appears that GopherFish is correct based on prior news articles and basic criminal procedure. Samms (Trevor's attorney) said last fall that he would push the trial back to the end of the basketball season.

Here's the question: Now that the season is over and school is presumably finished, why is the trial delayed further? It is possible that witnesses haven't been located or secured for the defense, but we just don't know. It would be great if the media contacted Samms to figure out what is going on (hint hint).

I know everyone is tired of waiting for a resolution but the most important part of this whole ordeal for Samms and Trevor is that they put up a thorough defense. If that means they need to delay the case to secure/locate more witnesses, that's what should happen. Prosecutors typically have very high conviction rates. The felony charges against Trevor are very serious. They should not rush to trial without essential witnesses if they haven't secured all the evidence they believe necessary to the defense.

 

[scools12]

not knowing all the particulars of this case the defendent does have a right to a speedy trial.

however, the defendent can waive the right which I am guessing happened in this case.

 

[Plinnius]

Here's the question: Now that the season is over and school is presumably finished, why is the trial delayed further?

It hasn't been delayed further.

 

[Go Gophs eh?]

ATTENTION LEGAL "GURUS"-can we legally impeach joel maturi? because i would love to. thanks

 

[Swede]

Some defense attorneys prefer to put some space between offense and time of trial. The theory is that memories will falter and inconsistencies invariably will creep in. The idea is to then pounce on every "um", "er" or "ah" that comes out of state's witness' mouth. The state has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The incomplete or inconsistent testimony of the state's witness(es) may be the chink in the armor.

If this was a solid case for the defense, I'm assuming he would have pursued a speedy trial, subpoenad the necessary witnesses and had it over with. I would assume at this point that all that stands between this recruiting class and disaster is Rodney Williams.

 

[MinneMike]

I am flabbergasted that many of you make the unsubstantiated claim that the series of postponements have all been from the Trevor defense team. You have no basis in fact to support such a claim. In fact, the prosecution team has had difficulty in obtaining depositions from witnesses for months. Moreover, of late, the prosecutor now states the possibility of another case moving ahead of Trevor's case even at this late date. The prosecution is reeling at present much to the detriment of Trevor.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution in our legal system. I remain convinced in a 25% probability of a dissolution of this case.

 

[underground629]

I guess we can't say for sure ALL of them, but Trevor's attorney said that he would be trying to push back the trials.

I am flabbergasted that many of you make the unsubstantiated claim that the series of postponements have all been from the Trevor defense team. You have no basis in fact to support such a claim. In fact, the prosecution team has had difficulty in obtaining depositions from witnesses for months. Moreover, of late, the prosecutor now states the possibility of another case moving ahead of Trevor's case even at this late date. The prosecution is reeling at present much to the detriment of Trevor.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution in our legal system. I remain convinced in a 25% probability of a dissolution of this case.

 

[kramer]

I agree with everything everyone says here. One other thing that is worth noting is that trials have increased in length over the years, in part because of procedural rules, but also because judges everywhere are managing larger and larger caseloads. This may compound the problem a little.

Btw, what does "speedy" mean? Our idea of speedy is much different than what a "speedy" trial would be in the 1800s. The purpose of having a "speedy" trial is, in part, due to the fact that punishment is supposed to be administered swiftly. I think this idea of a speedy trial today means nothing either way, for either the rule of law or for the defendants who are falsely accused, if no one gets a speedy trial.

 

[GopherJake]

Btw, what does "speedy" mean?

In the state of Florida, it is defined that within 175 days of being taken into custody for a felony, the accused has a right to a trial or charges are dismissed with prejudice.

Our idea of speedy is much different than what a "speedy" trial would be in the 1800s. The purpose of having a "speedy" trial is, in part, due to the fact that punishment is supposed to be administered swiftly.

WRONG! The 6th Amendement - part of the Bill of Rights - soley protects the accused from indefinite incarceration prior to a fair trial.

 

[kramer]

In the state of Florida, it is defined that within 175 days of being taken into custody for a felony, the accused has a right to a trial or charges are dismissed with prejudice.



WRONG! The 6th Amendement - part of the Bill of Rights - soley protects the accused from indefinite incarceration prior to a fair trial.

Thanks Jake. But you will have noticed that I said, "In part," (with the 6th Amendment, which everyone already knows provides for speedy trials, being implicit).

You can't deny that the other theoretical reason why we provide for speedy trials is that it bolsters the rule of law. It does so in two ways - by administering punishments swiftly and not holding the accused indefinitely. It's actually a mutually beneficial concept.

 

[Goofers71]

I am a criminal defense lawyer

My answer to all the questions is that "it depends." Every state has somewhat different rules and every jurisdiction within a state has different ways of doing things. Delaying the trial of a client who is not in custody often works to the client's advantage. There are reasons to sometimes push the tempo(fast break) and get a quicker trial. Generally, however, if you have a sure winner you get it dismissed pretrial or, at minimum a really good deal for the client who doesn't want to gamble. The fact that Trevor's lawyer couldn't get the case dismissed pretrial tells me that he doesn't have a sure winner. A prudent lawyer would then probably like to delay things. The Sixth Amendment is applied to Florida state court through the Fourteenth Amendment. It's pretty difficult to get a case dismissed for a speedy trial violation. Where a statute like the Florida one most often comes into play is where the client is in custody. The remedy for denial of speedy is often(but not always) release from custody rather than outright dismissal.

 

[GopherJake]

Thanks Jake. But you will have noticed that I said, "In part," (with the 6th Amendment, which everyone already knows provides for speedy trials, being implicit).

You can't deny that the other theoretical reason why we provide for speedy trials is that it bolsters the rule of law. It does so in two ways - by administering punishments swiftly and not holding the accused indefinitely. It's actually a mutually beneficial concept.

<b>WRONG AGAIN!</b> You may notice that I said "soley," and I meant it. Do you know what the Bill of Rights is for? Or more specifically, who it is for? It ain't to protect the government or to empower the government. Quite the opposite.

 

[Jackson5]

<b>WRONG AGAIN!</b> You may notice that I said "soley," and I meant it. Do you know what the Bill of Rights is for? Or more specifically, who it is for? It ain't to protect the government or to empower the government. Quite the opposite.

You have quite the legal mind. Why don't we have the right to a jury trial for anything over $20? The seventh amendment says we do. Go do some research and report back.

Seventh Amendment:
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

 

[kramer]

<b>WRONG AGAIN!</b> You may notice that I said "soley," and I meant it. Do you know what the Bill of Rights is for? Or more specifically, who it is for? It ain't to protect the government or to empower the government. Quite the opposite.

I acknowledge that the bill of rights provides for a speedy trial. Who doesn't? After British colonial rule, a right to a speedy trial went over well with the people, propbably such that there wasn't any debate over that amendment in the bill of rights. But the idea of a speedy trial was not born with the bill of rights. It has its roots in some of the great philosophical questions about the rule of law dating back to the ancient greeks!!!!! Andrew Altman provides a good history of this (and for conservatives, Friedrich Hayek has a good chapter in "The Road to Serfdom.") Perhaps the bill of rights may have been one of the first places to codify it, but unfortunately I think you completely misinterpreted my whole post.

The bill of rights, of course, was the grand compromise pursued by Jefferson and his anti-federalists that eventually led to constitutional ratification. The bill of rights was an attempt to protect states and individuals from the power of the federal government. That is the textbook view of the bill of rights anyway. In fact, there was a lot of debate NOT to have a bill of rights because the founders were worried that unenumerated rights would not be recognized! Hence, the 9th Amendment. And hence the fact that critics cry foul when SCOTUS Justices find rights, such as privacy, that aren't enumerated....

I think the rest of this conversation can be taken over to the off-topic board.

 

[MinneMike]

My answer to all the questions is that "it depends." Every state has somewhat different rules and every jurisdiction within a state has different ways of doing things. Delaying the trial of a client who is not in custody often works to the client's advantage. There are reasons to sometimes push the tempo(fast break) and get a quicker trial. Generally, however, if you have a sure winner you get it dismissed pretrial or, at minimum a really good deal for the client who doesn't want to gamble. The fact that Trevor's lawyer couldn't get the case dismissed pretrial tells me that he doesn't have a sure winner. A prudent lawyer would then probably like to delay things. The Sixth Amendment is applied to Florida state court through the Fourteenth Amendment. It's pretty difficult to get a case dismissed for a speedy trial violation. Where a statute like the Florida one most often comes into play is where the client is in custody. The remedy for denial of speedy is often(but not always) release from custody rather than outright dismissal.

Interesting, but it was the prosecution who claimed their inability to get all the depositions they sought (circa March 2010). It is the prosecution who suggests the possibility of another trial moving ahead of the 7 June trial date for Trevor. The series of postponements brings to mind the Duke Lacrosse case.

 

[kramer]

My answer to all the questions is that "it depends." Every state has somewhat different rules and every jurisdiction within a state has different ways of doing things. Delaying the trial of a client who is not in custody often works to the client's advantage. There are reasons to sometimes push the tempo(fast break) and get a quicker trial. Generally, however, if you have a sure winner you get it dismissed pretrial or, at minimum a really good deal for the client who doesn't want to gamble. The fact that Trevor's lawyer couldn't get the case dismissed pretrial tells me that he doesn't have a sure winner. A prudent lawyer would then probably like to delay things. The Sixth Amendment is applied to Florida state court through the Fourteenth Amendment. It's pretty difficult to get a case dismissed for a speedy trial violation. Where a statute like the Florida one most often comes into play is where the client is in custody. The remedy for denial of speedy is often(but not always) release from custody rather than outright dismissal.

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) is the case, I believe

 

[GopherJake]

You have quite the legal mind. Why don't we have the right to a jury trial for anything over $20? The seventh amendment says we do. Go do some research and report back.

Seventh Amendment:
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

This has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Kramer is absolutely right about one thing - this side-discussion doesn't need to go any farther on the basketball board.

 

[figi]

I do know that the Miami-Dade DA office is notoriously inept. But at this point it's ridiculous and I'd think there's something Trevor's lawyer could do. He does have the right to a speedy trial. Speedy went out the door long ago.

All indications are that it is Trevor's lawyer who is asking for the delays.