Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    425

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    Judges can be just as biased and stupid as juries. That's what keeps the appeals courts busy.
    Sure, but at least States provide for Courts of Appeals, they are not required by the Constitution or any case law from it.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    18,150

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    Sure, but at least States provide for Courts of Appeals, they are not required by the Constitution or any case law from it.
    Article iii of the US Constitution:
    Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
    Maybe not required but certainly allowed for.

    And I'll wager that state constitutions are worded similarly.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,123

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    A defendant is entitled to a Bench trial also, so the jury theory there is moot.
    In at least most states, both the defendant AND the state are entitled to a jury trial if they want it. Pretty much in every case at least one side wants a jury. This is why you very, very rarely see bench trials in a criminal case.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    425

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    Maybe not required but certainly allowed for.
    And I'll wager that state constitutions are worded similarly.
    Sure, there is similar such language for the establishment of Courts, in Article 4 of the Ohio Constitution.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    In at least most states, both the defendant AND the state are entitled to a jury trial if they want it.
    In Ohio, if the defendant demands a jury trial, the state has to abide by it. The exception is Minor Misdemeanor charges, they are not triable by Jury.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,841

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"


    In Ohio, if the defendant demands a jury trial, the state has to abide by it. The exception is Minor Misdemeanor charges, they are not triable by Jury.
    What TM was stating was that if the STATE (i.e., the prosecution) requests a jury, they can have it even if the defense doesn't. The US Constitution (and many of the states) guarantees the right of the defendant to a jury trial, but it is unspecified if the state has the same right. However, there are court cases (notably the Illinois Supreme Court People v. Scornavache) that do give such right to the state.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    In at least most states, both the defendant AND the state are entitled to a jury trial if they want it. Pretty much in every case at least one side wants a jury. This is why you very, very rarely see bench trials in a criminal case.
    ...And why is that TM? Could it be because they are more easily BS'd?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,841

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    ...And why is that TM? Could it be because they are more easily BS'd?
    https://casetext.com/case/the-people-v-scornavache

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    I understand the differences Jack points out. The point was, the case Ron linked internally never used the term "Legally unavailable" just "Available", but in the context of the facts, he appeared to be "Legally unavailable" yes, as opposed to unavailable with no legal justification, such as fleeing to avoid prosecution. I understand the your useage, and it really is not any big issue to raise Cain over.


    "Insane" is a medical term, and a person can be declared Insane by a Doctor, that requires no legal ruling in and of itself, but that does not mean he is "legally insane" unless such court determination. I understand all of the facts Jack pointed out.
    Actually you seem to still not get it, or maybe you don't want to understand. But it is a huge deal, if the defense had won the Sirois hearing my husband would not be in prison right now. Literally. This was also the point in time that he was offered 6 months SHOCK, right before the hearing. Even the DA thought the defense was going to win the hearing.
    The DA was not going to call me to testify and did not. The main witness and in their eyes the "victim". A right the defendant has is to confront the victim under cross- examination. The Sirois hearing allowed for the DA to not call me as a witness, by being declaring legally unavailable by the Judge. And in our case allowing hearsay at trial.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting lalafreed
    View Post
    Actually you seem to still not get it, or maybe you don't want to understand. But it is a huge deal, if the defense had won the Sirois hearing my husband would not be in prison right now. Literally. This was also the point in time that he was offered 6 months SHOCK, right before the hearing. Even the DA thought the defense was going to win the hearing.
    The DA was not going to call me to testify and did not. The main witness and in their eyes the "victim". A right the defendant has is to confront the victim under cross- examination. The Sirois hearing allowed for the DA to not call me as a witness, by being declaring legally unavailable by the Judge. And in our case allowing hearsay at trial.
    I had a similar occurrence at my trial. A defense witness who was deposed prior to trial was, for some reason, not "available" to testify at trial. So, the defense attorney had a colleague take the stand and read this witness' deposition responses to the jury. By doing this his statements went unchallenged or clarified, similar to yours, because he was 'unavailable.'

    IMO, if a person can testify against you, similar to what you inadvertently did to your husband that night, that witness should be able to testify in court. By doing what they did in both of our trials, statements can be taken out of context, read to the jury, and never cross examined or explained.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    47.606 N 122.332 W in body, still at 90 S in my mind.
    Posts
    1,663

    Default Re: Wrongful Conviction- and I'm the "Victim"

    Quote Quoting lalafreed
    View Post
    Actually you seem to still not get it, or maybe you don't want to understand. But it is a huge deal, if the defense had won the Sirois hearing my husband would not be in prison right now. Literally. This was also the point in time that he was offered 6 months SHOCK, right before the hearing. Even the DA thought the defense was going to win the hearing.
    The DA was not going to call me to testify and did not. The main witness and in their eyes the "victim". A right the defendant has is to confront the victim under cross- examination. The Sirois hearing allowed for the DA to not call me as a witness, by being declaring legally unavailable by the Judge. And in our case allowing hearsay at trial.
    Whether or not the prosecutor felt they were going to prevail in a particular hearing doesn't mean they wouldn't attempt it. Defense attorneys do the same thing. The fact of the matter is that the prosecutor DID prevail. That the prosecutor wasn't confident that they would prevail is why they offered a deal. It's all moot now, anyway.

    Of course the DA wasn't going to call you to testify! DV victims are notoriously unreliable! Also, while the defendant has the right to confront their accuser, true, but that doesn't mean that the DA has to call the accuser. The defense certainly can themselves and your husband didn't assert that right). That your husbands attorney didn't assert that right is not the fault of the prosecution.

    If you are appealing the conviction you can only appeal the calls of the presiding judge and whether or not the procedure of the trial was correct. You cannot call witnesses or introduce new evidence. It's not a new trial.
    "Where do those stairs go?"
    "They go up!"

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Criminal Records: Recording "No Conviction" Although Found "Guilty"
    By johnk1 in forum Criminal Records
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2013, 02:06 PM
  2. Sex Offenses: Defending a Sexual Assault Charge by Claiming the Victim is a "Woman Scorned"
    By michiganguy in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 05:09 PM
  3. Victims Rights: "Victim" Dropping No Contact Order
    By gosling in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 12:33 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-18-2009, 01:40 PM
  5. Lawyer Said "Dismissed", Court Cost Receipt Says "DUI 1st Conviction"
    By teddro in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-21-2008, 03:02 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources