He also claimed that if they didn't find him in time they'd have to 'admit they can't count votes'.
Now I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure that there's no legal basis for determining the validuty of elections through Trial by Hide & Seek.
Indeed, the historical practice rather leaned toward trial
in absentia. I'm still struggling to find any basis in law for Giuliani's expressed belief that charges must be dropped if arrest or service of process cannot be perfected within some arbitrary time limit. This is most certainly the opposite of the practice in every American jurisdiction I'm aware of.
There is naturally a statute of limitations limiting when charges can be brought after such time as evidence of them is discovered. But charges are brought by a grand jury in such cases, and have been speedily brought here. The subsequent service of the summons is irrelevant to that. Indeed, the Arizona rules of procedure specify that once an indictment has been handed down, the indictment should be presented as soon as possible to the criminal court, and a summons or warrant issued. This has been done.
After a person is arrested, charges must be brought very shortly—generally within two or three days. After charges are brought, the trial must commence "speedily," (that's in the Constitution), generally within 60-70 days of arrest and confinement. This is the only case in which dismissal of charges is even remotely considered as a consequence. Giuliani has not been arrested. Quite the reverse; charges have been brought.
The rest is basically an ongoing game of hide-and-seek that does not stop simply because the police have tired of it for a time. Many a woeful criminal has set foot in a jurisdiction only to be arrested on long-dormant charges.
And, further yes, I see no rational connection between the inability of the state to catch up to a criminal defendant and its ability—now thoroughly examined in Arizona's case—to conduct an election for President. Rather the opposite: Giuliani has had his chance in several courts to present legally cognizable evidence that any vote tampering occurred to deprive Donald Trump of a fair election to President. He was unable in any of these cases. No rational connection exists between his ongoing allegations and the process of charging him criminally for anything.
Giuliani continues to demonstrate just how increasingly addled he is.
Even here in the UK, where we have some odd, archaic laws left on the books...
I have well-worn printed copies of Erskine May and Glanville Williams, so yes.
The latter helps me a little in my side quest. While thumbing through Williams'
The Proof of Guilt, hoping to find some relevant material on the service of a criminal summons and complaint, I arrived at a curious bit of outmoded criminal procedure that helps me in my side quest in this thread. Until 1794, criminal trials had to be concluded in one sitting, no matter how long it took. The infamous trial of Thomas, Lord Cochrane in 1814 more or less adhered to the prior practice. The defense was not able to present its case until after midnight, when the trial had already been going for 15 hours. The court adjourned at 3 AM, only to reconvene at 10 AM for the prosecution's rejoinder, which enjoyed the benefit of sleep. Similarly during this time, juries were charged and then sequestered without food, water, or heat until they reached a verdict. Cochrane's trial was generally seen as a miscarriage of justice, possibly because the jury hastened to
any verdict.
The hungry judges soon the sentence sign,
And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.
Lord Cochrane is, of course, the model for both O'Brien's Capt. Aubrey and Forester's Horatio Hornblower. O'Brien proudly states that the trial of Lord Cochrane is the model for the trial of Capt. Aubrey in
The Reverse of the Medal, but I am unable to find in that work any specifics on the service of process restrictions I alluded to earlier, regarding serving a summons upon an officer on board his own ship. As Aubrey is subject throughout the series to service of private prosecutions and civil matters, I may have to re-read the entire series in order to participate further in this thread. I do, however, have the biography of Cochrane at my disposal and shall probably find more ready sustenance there.
