The District Attorney and You

[Bospy]

This thread shall serve as the primary location for feedback, questions, or criticism of the District Attorney’s Office. 
 

Recently, we implemented a Brady List. This should spice legal roleplay up a bit as it comes to lying under oath. My motives as the leader of the DA’s office is to find inventive ways to create more interesting Court roleplay and also make sure prosecutions progress at a quick rate.

 

[YAOMINGFROMEASTSIDELONGOS]

Id like to see DAs reaching out with more plea deals, mostly it feels like if u want a plea deal ur lawyer has to reach out or u have to snitch in order to get one.

[Bospy]

8 hours ago, YAOMINGFROMEASTSIDELONGOS said:

Id like to see DAs reaching out with more plea deals, mostly it feels like if u want a plea deal ur lawyer has to reach out or u have to snitch in order to get one.

Notes, we’re trying to encourage that more. But with a lack of cases, many of our guys are just itching to actually prosecute a case to a full outcome. Many people are unaware we requested and received the not guilty pleas coming back for any arrest.

[mana]

Some of the public threads and documentation found on the judiciary's forums may look as if they haven't been really kept up-to-date for a while. It may be a good idea to update those and even give them a facelift somewhere down the line.

[Anders]

I'd love more ingame trials, more IC drama with the courts and so on. Election for judges even perhaps?

 

A more involvement with the civilians (illegal and legal) in LS and Blaine etc, this could be like you can take law classes and learn to become a lawyer instead of just reading and taking a bar exam online and boom, lawyer.

 

I know this might not be under your purview but its something I'd love to see. 

[Narco]

Do you have any interesting photos of DA investigators at work by any chance? or is that no longer a position within the DA's office? always was curious how that looked. 

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

7 hours ago, Anders said:

Election for judges even perhaps?

 

 

I hope you're joking, Ed.

 

On a serious note: my main issue, as with the whole of the faction, is with portrayal and accuracy.  There are lot of inaccuracies and abuses of legal terminology or concepts from prosecutors too.  For one notable example, consider the concept of dismissing an action with prejudice / without prejudice.  There are a number of criminal proceedings where the prosecution attempt was terminated with or without prejudice.  Notice I deliberately wrote "dismissing an action."  There is a difference between an action and a prosecuting an indictment; an action refers to civil proceedings only.  The concept of a dismissal with or without prejudice applies only to civil proceedings.  There is no such thing as dismissing a criminal proceeding "with prejudice" or "without prejudice."  You will notice LII's Wex legal encyclopedia entries for "dismissal with prejudice" and "dismissal without prejudice" (click to access) make no reference to criminal proceedings — that is because, again, the concept has no application in criminal proceedings.  But here, like summary judgments, it has somehow been transplanted from civil to criminal proceedings; and seemingly, in both instances, without regard to the constitutionality of such transplant or its impact on a criminal defendant's constitutional guarantees. 

 

Depending on the stage at which the criminal proceeding was terminated, and on the trial court's determination, the indictment may not be brought and prosecuted again on account of double jeopardy.  A double jeopardy analysis is the only thing that should be considered, by prosecutors and by courts, in the context of terminating and reinstituting criminal proceedings. 

 

Not to appear to be self-promoting (I have nothing to gain from doing that anyway — I am not doing anything and not active around these parts) but I wrote on the double-jeopardy analysis that prosecutors and courts should be undertaking in this 2019 Los Santos Review of Law article:

 

Quote

 

 

This is not a concern over some benign inaccuracy — the misuse risks practical consequences for the criminal defendants and the constitutionality of criminal proceedings.  Declaring that a prosecution attempt is "dismissed without prejudice" risks glossing over double jeopardy and violating double jeopardy.   It would not be difficult to imagine a judge hearing a request to terminate, then granting that request to terminate "without prejudice" and the prosecutor, then,  (wrongly) construing that declaration as the court (wrongly) permitting the indictment to be filed and prosecuted again.  Depending on when that termination occurred, and on the particulars or reason(s) for that termination, following the court's declaration and prosecuting again would be in violation of double jeopardy, and the second court could fail to see that after getting caught up in the first court's abuse of "dismissal without prejudice." 

 

Accuracy is important and misuse here, as much as any other misuse, frequently has practical consequences. 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[JohnGili]

To be honest. I understand the points above  but you slightly wrong. Sadly there is no criminal procedure law in san Andreas yet. So sometimes we have to refer to other sources but the califonia criminal practice procedure, the prosecution can request the case to be dismissed with or without prejudice. Sadly i dont have a copy of that right now but it is possible. In real life not all cases will proceed to trial so sometimes a the DA can ask for the case to be dismissed without prejudice and refile this case when enough evidence is presented. In reality it is very rare but it happens. 

 

This is not only califonia but some state laws does include it in their practice procedure. 

 

The double jeopardy rule applies once the case proceeds to trial and then if the defendant is found not guilty. You cannot retry the entire case with the same facts. It is to protect the people of prosecution misconduct and oppressive measures. 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by JohnGili

[Diana_Molina]

22 hours ago, Anders said:

I'd love more ingame trials 

Sadly, those are almost impossible to schedule. IG trials are usually reserved to high profile cases, however they rarely ever take place due to a number of factors including (but not limited to): huge amount of people involved (judge, prosecution, defense, witnesses) from all across the world, insane amounts of paperwork (cases with up to 30-40 exhibits) and time limits - it's simply impossible to condense the entire pretrial proceedings, trial and sentencing into 3-4 hours of active roleplay. 

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

3 hours ago, JohnGili said:

To be honest. I understand the points above  but you slightly wrong. Sadly there is no criminal procedure law in san Andreas yet. So sometimes we have to refer to other sources but the califonia criminal practice procedure, the prosecution can request the case to be dismissed with or without prejudice. Sadly i dont have a copy of that right now but it is possible. In real life not all cases will proceed to trial so sometimes a the DA can ask for the case to be dismissed without prejudice and refile this case when enough evidence is presented. In reality it is very rare but it happens. 

 

This is not only califonia but some state laws does include it in their practice procedure. 

 

The double jeopardy rule applies once the case proceeds to trial and then if the defendant is found not guilty. You cannot retry the entire case with the same facts. It is to protect the people of prosecution misconduct and oppressive measures. 

 

 

I don’t know exactly why California has done what they’ve done; apparently it has transplanted the terms but uses them only after ensuring the double jeopardy was considered.  In other words, the prosecutor makes the request knowing the court did not make a substantive finding and made only a technical procedural ruling  (and, thus, double jeopardy doesn’t attach), and the court grants it “without prejudice” if it agrees that its procedural ruling doesn’t prevent a second prosecution attempt — or, otherwise, the court declines the request and instead dismisses “with prejudice” if the court disagrees with the prosecutor regarding the nature of its ruling.  
 

The point is that in criminal proceedings, double jeopardy must be considered when terminating and reinstating criminal proceedings.   Transplanting this concept without considering double jeopardy risks glossing that over. 

 

(Also, as an aside, double jeopardy doesn’t require an acquittal to attach; it attaches long before the acquittal.  The caselaw is clear on that point.  See Serfass v. United States (held that double jeopardy attaches when trial begins), Crist v. Bretz (held that, for the purposes of double jeopardy, trial begins when the jury is empanelled) and Downum v. United States, also discussed in the article above at p. 3.  But in our case, since the trier of fact is always a judge and not a jury — i.e. no jury empaneling is required, contrary to Crist — double jeopardy attaches after the arraignment or the second or third appearance before a judge immediately before trial) 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Midsummer Night's Dream