Merged Due process in the US

Darat said:
That is not what an arraignment is. At an arraignment hearing the judge will put the charges on the record, they will make sure the defendant understands those charges, they will inform the defendant of their rights, the defendant will be asked how they plead to those charges, that plea will be entered into the record. Bail may also be addressed as can the setting of other dates as due process dictates. No evidence is presented nor argued at an arraignment hearing.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Lawyer can contest the charges and ask for them to be thrown out, based on the evidence being garbage.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm sure Herc is just believing it because Herc has a desire, a need, to believe that the MAGA Trump regime is not as corrupt and authoritarian as they are. This is the hill he wants to die on, since other Trump Regime actions were found to be illegal.

Remember when he thought that the NJ Mayor was absolutely guilty of trespassing? He still believes it, even though the judge tossed out the case because it was without merit and the judge admonished the prosecutors for an obvious, political action.
Click to expand...
That is a lie I never said he was guilty of trespassing.
 
www.the-independent.com

Alex Padilla says FBI escorted him to Kristi Noem press conference

Senator rubbishes claims he did not identify himself and ‘barged’ into Homeland Security briefing
www.the-independent.com www.the-independent.com

sen padilla claims fbi escorted him to press conference they forced him out of and arrested him for attending. kind of like they did with that mayor, where they arrest officials doing their jobs for looking like they are committing crimes in scenarios they fabricated

again we are to trust they have the credibility to be operating a law enforcement agency
 
Hercules56 said:
Wrong. Lawyer can contest the charges and ask for them to be thrown out, based on the evidence being garbage.
Click to expand...
Yes, he can. But judges have a lot of leeway. Under most circumstances, a judge during an arraignment is not interested in trying the case and examining the evidence. He's going to accept the arresting officer's statement as presumed factual enough to set a date for future hearings etc. When I got the case thrown out during an arraignment, the judge was initially not interested. But judges often have a packed docket. And if you can help them in clearing that docket, they might be willing to listen.
 
Hercules56 said:
Wrong. Lawyer can contest the charges and ask for them to be thrown out, based on the evidence being garbage.
Click to expand...
No they can’t.

Now I know this is probably no longer a site to be trusted but here goes: https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/initial-hearing

Initial Hearing / Arraignment​

Share
right caret


Either the same day or the day after a defendant is arrested and charged, they are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. At that time, the defendant learns more about his rights and the charges against him, arrangements are made for him to have an attorney, and the judge decides if the defendant will be held in prison or released until the trial.

In many cases, the law allows the defendant to be released from prison before a trial if they meet the requirements for bail. Before the judge makes the decision on whether to grant bail, they must hold a hearing to learn facts about the defendant including how long the defendant has lived in the area, if they have family nearby, prior criminal record, and if they have threatened any witnesses in the case. The judge also considers the defendant’s potential danger to the community.

If the defendant cannot “post bail” (pay the money), the judge may order the defendant to be remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshals pending trial.

The defendant will also be asked to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
No they can’t.
Click to expand...
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.

 
acbytesla said:
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.

Click to expand...
See the official website for the DoJ I edited into my post after you quoted it.
 
Hercules56 said:
Garcia was arraigned today. Did his lawyer contest any of the evidence? He had the right to
Click to expand...
Nobody has the right to contest evidence at an arraignment. Evidence isn't even introduced at an arraignment.

The whole point of an arraignment is to notify the accused, on the record, of what they are being accused of.

The matter of evidence will be taken up later, at the trial, if things proceed that far.
 
Hmm, lots of lawyers out there agree that charges CAN be dropped at an arraignment hearing if the evidence is garbage. I wonder why Garcia's lawyer didn't try?
 
Hercules56 said:
Hmm, lots of lawyers out there agree that charges CAN be dropped at an arraignment hearing if the evidence is garbage. I wonder why Garcia's lawyer didn't try?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
Forget actual legal procedure; you can't even describe the action in a film correctly. "My Cousin Vinny" shows no such thing.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lots of lawyers seem to think its possible especially if the evidence is garbage. Google is your friend.
 
Hercules56 said:
Never said it did. But one of the kids brings it up.
Click to expand...
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:
Reformed Offlian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hercules56 said:
Lots of lawyers seem to think its possible especially if the evidence is garbage. Google is your friend.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Darat said:
See the official website for the DoJ I edited into my post after you quoted it.
Click to expand...
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
themindshield.com

Noem attends bungled ICE raid at home of pregnant US citizen. - The Mind Shield

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joined heavily armed ICE agents on an early morning raid looking for a violent criminal at the home of a pregnant American citizen, according to NewsNation. Around 6 a.m Thursday, Sabrina Medina said she looked through her window and saw about a half-dozen...
themindshield.com themindshield.com
 
Tero said:
Noem attends raid...finds only pregnant US Citizen
themindshield.com

Noem attends bungled ICE raid at home of pregnant US citizen. - The Mind Shield

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joined heavily armed ICE agents on an early morning raid looking for a violent criminal at the home of a pregnant American citizen, according to NewsNation. Around 6 a.m Thursday, Sabrina Medina said she looked through her window and saw about a half-dozen...
themindshield.com themindshield.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
johnny karate said:
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?
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Once this lot get finished with the justice system there won't be any Not Guilty verdicts.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...
acbytesla said:
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.

Click to expand...
As I said the DoJ refutes your claim.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Darat said:
As I said the DoJ refutes your claim.
Click to expand...
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:
Aridas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom