bureaucratic snafu, in defendant's favor?
RichD
great aggravation. The citizen must spend his time
and money to clear the snafu, while gummit employees
are spending taxpayer dimes.
But does it ever go the other way, where the snafu
favors the defendant'? For instance, a cop might
do a background check, and receive no notice that
the subject is on parole. Or, a defendant might go
into arraignment, and the judge sees nothing to
indicate he is on parole, or probation, or perhaps
that the alleged violation is also a probation violation.
Does that ever happen?
--
Rich
McGyver
"RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48267ff6-3e33-451c...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Every day.
This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.
McGyver
RichD
> > We know city hall can muck things up, to one's
> > great aggravation. The citizen must spend his time
> > and money to clear the snafu, while gummit employees
> > are spending taxpayer dimes.
>
> > But does it ever go the other way, where the snafu
> > favors the defendant'? For instance, a cop might
> > do a background check, and receive no notice that
> > the subject is on parole. Or, a defendant might go
> > into arraignment, and the judge sees nothing to
> > indicate he is on parole, or probation, or perhaps
> > that the alleged violation is also a probation violation.
>
> > Does that ever happen?
>
> Every day.
Color me shocked.
So a prior doesn't appear, the defendant gets off
lightly, protected by double jeopardy?
--
Rich
richard
not necessarily. The parole violation would still be intact. The court
could find this out later and notify the parole officer.
He's already been tried and convicted. The crime of parole violation is
seperate.
Greegor
richard
> Kent Bradley Wills?
George W Bush.
RichD
RichD
huh?
Deadrat
7b9634...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
You don't want to know. It's neither interesting nor important.
Please take my word for it.
RichD
> > great aggravation. The citizen must spend his time
> > and money to clear the snafu, while gummit employees
> > are spending taxpayer dimes.
>
> > But does it ever go the other way, where the snafu
> > favors the defendant'? For instance, a cop might
> > do a background check, and receive no notice that
> > the subject is on parole. Or, a defendant might go
> > into arraignment, and the judge sees nothing to
> > indicate he is on parole, or probation,
>
>
> Every day.
ok, I finally got the full story from a friend of mine,
after his arraignment. It's complicated, I think
I have it straight.
Last January, he was arrested for bad behavior at
his place of employment. He was given a 2 year
suspended sentence, with order not to return to
that location, as condition of probation.
Last month, he went back for a visit (apparently
he thought no one would mind) (he was never
a threat to Einstein). Someone spotted him,
called the cops, he got arrested for trespassing.
The police looked up his record, they discovered
his prior, and the probation violation, which they
added to the trespassing charge.
Then they take him to jail. The officials there
do a background check, don't see any probation
status, drop that one He gets released o.r.
He goes to his arraignment last week - no lawyer
consultation - the judge pulls his file,... no mention
of his prior! The judge says, "How do you plead?
If you plead guilty today, I'll give you 2 years probation."
My friend, astonished, didn't want to drag it out,
giving them a chance to dig deeper, pled guilty.
Comments?
--
Rich