Can You Request a Motion to Dismiss at a Change of Plea Hearing

[CONNOR99]

You comment all the time. All. The. Time.

Your experience having been a defendant in criminal or civil proceedings doesn't give you insight to the workings of the law or make your interpretation of the law any more weight. If anything, you sound a lot more like a crank to me with an ax to grind than someone dispassionately discussing

If you read the disclaimer you'll find that it says, explicitly, that legal advice is not provided here and that not all here are attorneys. This is a place to discuss the law and to, perhaps explain the law to others who come here with question. You wax on about everything except the law. When it becomes advisable OPs here are advised to contact an attorney and to only discuss the matter with them.

Your knowledge is not about how the courts work, they are your own disgruntled ramblings about how you THINK it works and to say that they are biased is an understatement.

Finally, Many of the OP's here ARE guilty by there own admissions, either criminally or civilly. Some of the matters that come here are more complex, involving contract law, property law or rules regarding fiduciary responsibility but that is certainly not the majority. The petty shop lifter or traffic violator who wants to whine about their being caught and how it's unfair will get no sympathy from me.

I'll sum your post up in three words. "Experience is overrated."

Google is where it is at now.

[PayrolGuy]

I'll sum your post up in three words. "Experience is overrated."

Google is where it is at now.

I think you big problem is that your summation of what Mark just wrote is actually what you got out of it.

[Shadowbunny]

....

I comment on very little here yet I am despised by some. .

You have such an oddly skewed version of reality. Why is that? Because as Mark47n pointed out, you post a LOT. And my guess is that although "despise" may be a strong word, that there are many (based on the responses you get) who find you annoying because of your refusal to admit when you're wrong.

[Victory VI]

I just want to add something here unrelated to the legal question.

I was a member of a jury, here in Florida, for the trial of a girl accused of stealing around $60 of goods from some kind of party store.
Prosecution summoned store detective as a witness who testified he followed the girl out of the store and upon inspecting her shopping bag found the unpaid for merchandise. The girl admitted to that but said she just forgot to pay.

While deliberating I am pretty sure all of us knew the girl stole the stuff. We declared her innocent however. We didn't really argue as to why but I think we collectively thought the whole charade of a jury trial for $60 was ridiculous and that hanging a conviction on someone for that was disproportionate. If you had told me the sentence for her crime was 20 hours of community work and no record I think we would have convicted her hands down.

Moral of the story is that making assumptions about Jury's is like making assumptions about people in general.

[PayrolGuy]

I think the true moral of the story was that you and the others on the jury were crappy juries. Next time you get called for jury duty retell that story if you want to get out of jury duty.

[Victory VI]

I think the true moral of the story was that you and the others on the jury were crappy juries. Next time you get called for jury duty retell that story if you want to get out of jury duty.

I will absolutely admit we were a crappy jury. But do you think I, or the others, really care what some righteous interwebz moral authority like yourself thinks ? lulz.

[free9man]

While deliberating I am pretty sure all of us knew the girl stole the stuff. We declared her innocent however. We didn't really argue as to why but I think we collectively thought the whole charade of a jury trial for $60 was ridiculous and that hanging a conviction on someone for that was disproportionate. If you had told me the sentence for her crime was 20 hours of community work and no record I think we would have convicted her hands down.

That's called jury nullification and it does have its place in the judicial system. I don't think it was appropriate here. What was the sentence she was facing? Unless she was a repeat offender, she would have gotten a proverbial wrist slap. Some community service, fines and then away she goes.

You should know that it only went to a jury trial because the 2 sides couldn't come to an agreement beforehand. Most of the prosecutors I've dealt with don't want a trial for a minor case like that and will try their hardest to plead it out. Many times the defendant (or their attorney) wants to play the old attendance roulette game, hoping a necessary witness doesn't show for trial. They have the right to make the state prove it's case, it's on them if it goes bad. While it is possible the prosecutor in the case was just wanting to be a hardnose or pad his record with a slamdunk trial win, that hasn't been my experience.

[budwad]

I think the true moral of the story was that you and the others on the jury were crappy juries. Next time you get called for jury duty retell that story if you want to get out of jury duty.

Would you care to tell us what made OP a crappy juror? Is it because OP and other jurors had a conscience?

The one who was crappy was the prosecutor in the voudire of prospective jurors.

Did you ever serve on a jury?

[Mark47n]

Would you care to tell us what made OP a crappy juror? Is it because OP and other jurors had a conscience?

The one who was crappy was the prosecutor in the voudire of prospective jurors.

Did you ever serve on a jury?

Bollocks. The plaintiff said that she did it. She was observed doing it. The jury agreed that she did it but chose to acquit her because they didn't want her to have a record thus ignoring the law. It's not about voir dire, it's about juries doing there job even if they find it distasteful.

Oh, yes, I have served on a jury and I've been called 3 times. We were pretty sure that the defendant was guilty but the prosecutor called witnesses that contradicted each other so we found ourselves acquitting.

[Victory VI]

What was the sentence she was facing? Unless she was a repeat offender, she would have gotten a proverbial wrist slap. Some community service, fines and then away she goes.

You should know that it only went to a jury trial because the 2 sides couldn't come to an agreement beforehand. Most of the prosecutors I've dealt with don't want a trial for a minor case like that and will try their hardest to plead it out. Many times the defendant (or their attorney) wants to play the old attendance roulette game, hoping a necessary witness doesn't show for trial. They have the right to make the state prove it's case, it's on them if it goes bad. While it is possible the prosecutor in the case was just wanting to be a hardnose or pad his record with a slamdunk trial win, that hasn't been my experience.

I have no recollection of what her sentence looked like or whether we were even privy to what she was facing. I do remember there was not only the store detective but also a retired cop on the witness stand. If I remember correctly he did not appear too thrilled to be there.

The one who was crappy was the prosecutor in the voudire of prospective jurors.

I would actually have to come out here in the prosecutors defense. I don't remember the questions asked of the other jurors but they asked me whether I had ever bee subjected to theft and I answered yes, multiple times, sometimes at knife point. I believe I was chosen by the prosecution because they thought having been subject to armed robbery would make for a harsh juror but they were simply wrong. Not sure anyone else would have thought differently. So here again. Assumptions.