[excon]

The onus is on the prosecutor to lay out the case and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

Hello again, El:

Nope. It's his job to WIN - nothing else - and to use every legal means to do so. If he stops short because of the bureaucrat's lament, "it's not my job", that's not the judges fault.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Nope. It's his job to WIN - nothing else - and to use every legal means to do so. If he stops short because of the bureaucrat's lament, "it's not my job", that's not the judges fault.

excon

So you are arguing that it's not really his job to provide a translator, but if he wants to win he'll do it anyway?

That's just ridiculous. You are claiming that if he REALLY wants to win, he has to not only prove his case, but he has to give his opponents every advantage, and STILL win. That's just dumb, and it certainly has no basis in law.

If it isn't the prosecutor's job, there is no legal reason for a judge to compromise his case by claiming it is, and no reason for him to expect that it would happen. The judge cannot argue that the prosecutor failed in his duty to provide a translator if it isn't really his duty to do so. Or, rather, she can and did, but that doesn't make it right.

And I have a feeling that the decision will be overturned on appeal. If it is, will you still say that you trust the judges? And if so, which ones... the one that made the erroneous decision, or the ones that overturned her?

Have you read Mark Levin's book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America? I recommend you check it out and then tell me whether you still trust the judges to make the right decisions. The book chronicles a long history of Really Bad Decisions by judges. The fact that a judge has a degree from some university and wears a black robe doesn't make them infallible.

Elliot

[jillianleab]

Hello again, jillian:

I dunno. DC and I were able to find other stuff out there. Given when I've found, it isn't the judge who screwed up. And why do you think a liberal supports a judge over a prosecutor anyway? Because conservatives think prosecutors do no wrong? (Except when they go after rich white Duke students.)

I do concede the flaw in the system. It's built in. That's why we (ideally) have two well armed lawyers with completely opposite views of what the law is, fighting it out in a court of law.

This battle was fought. The prosecutor lost. Why make excuses for him? I certainly don't think there's a bias against prosecutors by judges. Prosecutors win in state court about 80% of the time. They win in federal court about 97% of the time.

Indeed, the bulk of the judges in this country, both federal and state, are chosen from the ranks of prosecutors rather than defense lawyers. If there's a bias, it's against defense lawyers.

excon

I say the judge screwed up because I think granting the right to an interpreter in the first place and letting this business carry on for so long was a bad decision. It stands to reason than since the guy has lived in English-speaking countries for most of his life that he has a grasp of the language enough to understand the charges being brought against him. THAT is where I think the judge made the mistake. Now, the bit about waiving his right to a speedy trial, and the defense arguing that right renews each time the case is continued or whatever, well, that's a legal argument that might (might!) hold some water. But, truth be told, I don't know enough about the legal system to say with confidence one way or the other. If it IS true that waiving his right to a speedy trial "expires" so to speak, then yes, the judge took the appropriate action. BUT, why was there a need for an interpreter in the first place? Why is it the prosecutors job to supply one? Why, when there WAS an interpreter, did the case STILL get dismissed? It makes no sense. Obviously we don't know the full facts around the case, or the specific reason the judge made her decision, and aside from a personal conversation with her, we won't. If the bit about having to track down an interpreter never happened, this case would have gone to trial years ago, right? Had the burden of finding an interpreter been placed on the defense (which makes more sense to me), then perhaps this never would have happened.

So instead, we have a suspected child molester on the streets, interacting with children and the children he allegedly assaulted; and we can't do anything about it except wait for an appeal. Now, maybe the guy is innocent, but why were the children threatened with "voodoo" if they didn't change their story? It sounds to me like there is some sort of family cover up or something to avoid court. And :p I can make all the assumptions I want about his guilt/innocence because I'm not on the jury!

[Dark_crow]

Hello again, jillian:

I dunno. DC and I were able to find other stuff out there. Given when I've found, it isn't the judge who screwed up. And why do you think a liberal supports a judge over a prosecutor anyway? Because conservatives think prosecutors do no wrong? (Except when they go after rich white Duke students.)

I do concede the flaw in the system. It's built in. That's why we (ideally) have two well armed lawyers with completely opposite views of what the law is, fighting it out in a court of law.

This battle was fought. The prosecutor lost. Why make excuses for him? I certainly don't think there's a bias against prosecutors by judges. Prosecutors win in state court about 80% of the time. They win in federal court about 97% of the time.

Indeed, the bulk of the judges in this country, both federal and state, are chosen from the ranks of prosecutors rather than defense lawyers. If there's a bias, it's against defense lawyers.

excon

Remember, Excon, these are people who think the only thing Nixon did wrong was to not burn the tapes:D

[interinfinity]

You maybe think its possible that the media just hyped up the fact that they couldn't find a translator. I mean this is foxnews. What if there were other reasons the charges were dropped, like... um... no physical evidence. It says in that report that there is documented proof he wasn't even there at the time of the crime and a registered sex offender was. That's what I hate about this country. We had the smartest men in the world write us the Constitution, and a bunch of blood thirsty utilitarians run around trying to put everyone in prison. Emotional irrationality should NEVER replace due process. Ever thought about the fact that to practice law, you need to pass the bar exam and possibly go to Law school. But in some parishes in Louisiana, where I'm from, you don't even need a High school DIPLOMA to lock people up. Cops screw up, that's why we have a justice system. Just because someone is charged with murder doesn't make them a murderer. Maybe some of you who are turning this into an immigration issue should pull the court records, because that is pubic information, and make an informed decision before you go ahead electing more right wing politicians who are going to take away more of my rights. 8 more years and I might just move to canada