• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

Forget actual legal procedure; you can't even describe the action in a film correctly. "My Cousin Vinny" shows no such thing.
Never said it did. But one of the kids brings it up. He was right, charges could have been dropped.

Too bad Garcia's lawyer didn't even try. I guess the evidence isn't as crappy as everyone here suggests.
 
Didn't those goalposts used to be over there?

A prosecutor could notify the court of an intent to drop charges during an arraignment. That wasn't your claim, though: you're saying that a good defense attorney can challenge charges and possibly get them dropped at an arraignment. It still isn't clear that this is correct.
Lots of lawyers seem to think its possible especially if the evidence is garbage. Google is your friend.
 
Never said it did. But one of the kids brings it up.
Pretty sure you aren't remembering that dialogue correctly, either.

Speaking of Google being one's friend: I have the screenplay in front of me.


There is only one mention by either of the two yutes of an arraignment:

STAN: He blew the arraignment! It's a simple procedure -- you heard what the judge said -- all he had to say was 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. We could have done that.

I've rewatched the movie recently. That's how the dialogue goes there, too.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure you aren't remembering that dialogue correctly, either.

Speaking of Google being one's friend: I have the screenplay in front of me.


There is only one mention by either of the two yutes of an arraignment:

STAN: He blew the arraignment! It's a simple procedure -- you heard what the judge said -- all he had to say was 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. We could have done that.

I've rewatched the movie recently. That's how the dialogue goes there, too.
Stan tells Vinny that he could have motioned to have the charges tossed out.

You guys keep claiming the charges against Garcia are based on garbage evidence. If that is true, lawyer could have asked the judge to throw out the charges.
 
Never said it did. But one of the kids brings it up. He was right, charges could have been dropped.

Too bad Garcia's lawyer didn't even try. I guess the evidence isn't as crappy as everyone here suggests.
Lots of lawyers seem to think its possible especially if the evidence is garbage. Google is your friend.
Possible, potentially. As noted, though, it's a rarity. Effectively "Not Guilty" rulings are very rarely reached at the time of arraignment, even if the evidence is garbage. Trying to use charges not being dropped during the arraignment as if it meant much of anything at all is garbage evidence itself.
 
See the official website for the DoJ I edited into my post after you quoted it.
What's your point? I get that an arraignment is the official presentation of the charges. And it is where an initial bail is usually determined. It is not the usual setting for any examination of evidence. I grant that. That said, a judge has the discretion and authority to do a precursorary examination for probable cause. I'm not arguing the Garcia case. But to say that a lawyer can't object to the charges because probable cause was not presented is not correct.
 
Noem attends raid...finds only pregnant US Citizen
 
Noem attends raid...finds only pregnant US Citizen
David? Jorge? A Garcia is a Garcia, close enough. Makes you all warm and fuzzy knowing they're out there doing what they need to do to keep us safe from the invading hordes.
 
You guys keep claiming the charges against Garcia are based on garbage evidence. If that is true, lawyer could have asked the judge to throw out the charges.

Not only is your logic flawed, but your conclusion is easily refuted by your own flawed logic: Why doesn’t this happen every time an innocent person is arraigned? How are there ever any not guilty verdicts if the arraignment confirms the evidence?
 
Last edited:
Not only is your logic flawed, but your conclusion is easily refuted by your own flawed logic: Why doesn’t this happen every time an innocent person is arraigned? How are there ever any not guilty verdicts if the arraignment confirms the evidence?

Don't worry. Once this lot get finished with the justice system there won't be any Not Guilty verdicts.
 
What's your point? I get that an arraignment is the official presentation of the charges. And it is where an initial bail is usually determined. It is not the usual setting for any examination of evidence. I grant that. That said, a judge has the discretion and authority to do a precursorary examination for probable cause. I'm not arguing the Garcia case.
But to say that a lawyer can't object to the charges because probable cause was not presented is not correct.
They absolutely can. But that doesn't mean the judge is going to listen to them. And chance are they won't. A judge, like a police officer has a lot of discretionary authority. An arraignment is a formal presentation of the charges. But charges must be based on probable cause. I've watched more than a few YouTube videos where judges have dismissed cases during arraignment. But the reality is that happens very rarely.

As I said the DoJ refutes your claim.
 
Stan tells Vinny that
he could have motioned to have the charges tossed out.

You guys keep claiming the charges against Garcia are based on garbage evidence. If that is true, lawyer could have asked the judge to throw out the charges.
At the arraignment there is no evidence to be presented that is not what it is for.

Are you confusing an arraignment hearing with a preliminary hearing? It's at the preliminary hearing that a judge for the first time could decide the evidence the prosecution is putting forward does not establish "probable cause" and throw the case out.
 
As I said the DoJ refutes your claim.
As noted before by that poster, it doesn't. It describes what an arraignment is, not whether the Judge may choose to do a little more during that event in practice. An example of a Judge actually doing so and an overall reason why was given - the quick and easily presentable evidence very clearly contradicted the single charge and the Judge wasn't particularly interested in wasting their time further when they already had a huge workload at hand. Now, to apply that overall concept here, Garcia's case involves multiple charges and is very much in the public eye, both of which make it a very unlikely candidate for the already highly unlikely event of a Judge doing that little bit more during this particular part of the process.
 
Last edited:
As noted before by that poster, it doesn't. It describes what an arraignment is, not whether the Judge may choose to do a little more during that event in practice. An example of a Judge actually doing so and an overall reason why was given -
the quick and easily presentable evidencevery clearly contradicted the single charge and the Judge wasn't particularly interested in wasting their time further when they already had a huge workload at hand. Now, to apply that overall concept here, Garcia's case involves multiple charges and is very much in the public eye, both of which make it a very unlikely candidate for the already highly unlikely event of a Judge doing that little bit more during this particular part of the process.
Evidence is not presented at an arraignment hearing. At the next stage - a preliminary hearing is the first time evidence will be put before a judge.

ETA: Remember we are talking about a federal court, not a state court.
 
Last edited:
Stan tells Vinny that he could have motioned to have the charges tossed out.

You guys keep claiming the charges against Garcia are based on garbage evidence. If that is true, lawyer could have asked the judge to throw out the charges.
Just can't give this one up, can you? Your argument is beginning to sound like that of a bigfooter: the hero had fake feet in his closet and made up stories for years, but this time he really saw one!

The evidence does not actually have to stink like garbage to be false. The defense cannot argue the veracity of the evidence. We are dealing here with a prosecution with a known history of falsehood, some of it conspicuously applying to the defendant in question. After all this time, do you really believe that no prosecution has ever lied going into court? They broke the law when they deported him, lied going in, lied throughout, lied about whether he could be returned, but oh how terrible to suspect they might be lying now.

We're dealing here with a Homeland Security department whose head has openly acknowledged that her job is to "save" cities she considers mismanaged, not homeland security at all, who openly and egregiously lies about events in plain view, accompanies her minions as they go to the wrong house and harass a citizen and her children, working for an administration that lies, bribes, defies the Constitution, and so forth.

You know, it really doesn't matter what happened once in a movie (amusing as that movie was). It's about whether the administration in this case deserves any faith. It's of course possible that Garcia is a bad person who ought to be deported, but it almost doesn't matter any more. There was a chance to do it right. The administration blew it, hugely and publicly, demonstrating a disdain for truth and for the law itself. Garcia has become a symbol of how abusively lawless and flamboyantly dishonest the administration has become, and I think there's an argument that they should lose the case no matter what or who Garcia turns out to be. We are in a horror show, and the phone call is coming from inside the house!
 
If the lawyer is really good he can get the charges tossed out during the arraignment. If you watched My Cousin Vinny you would know that.
Oh yes, My Cousin Vinny, the award-winning court proceedings documentary. Someone's starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel for ways to continue to get attention.
 
We're dealing here with a Homeland Security department whose head has openly acknowledged that her job is to "save" cities she considers mismanaged, not homeland security at all, who openly and egregiously lies about events in plain view, accompanies her minions as they go to the wrong house and harass a citizen and her children, working for an administration that lies, bribes, defies the Constitution, and so forth.
Let's not forget that she doesn't know the meaning of habeas corpus, even though that concept is at the heart of several major court cases challenging the legality of her department's actions.
 

Back
Top Bottom