The District Attorney and You

[Bospy]

23 hours ago, Anders said:

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. 

This is outside the purview of the District Attorney's Office, but a better recommendation for JSA.

 

18 hours ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

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. 

 

Once again, this is moreso an issue for JSA and the Courts, there really isn't a whole lot of influence I have on this process beyond advocating for change or formal procedural rules. As you point out and as we both know summary judgments are not allowed in criminal trials in real life. Only something like 12% of federal trials are not decided by a jury, so the way we portray this system is inaccurate to the real thing in many regards.

 

 

[JohnGili]

2 hours ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

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) 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you are right in this aspect but apparently, according to my research, this sometimes happens in federal courts as well. But it depends on the amount of evidence presented or was their procedures violated. If the process is violated such as evidence collected in an improper manner ie. a search on a property is done without a warrant or other violations. The judge can make that determination to dismiss the case with prejudice. If their prosecution lacks mere evidence or there is no process to proceed but there is some evidence indicating that the crime may have taken place, the judge can dismiss the case without prejudice.

In regards to the other part. You are right as I was half asleep when I typing but key words. 'proceeds to trial'. You are right, the case doesn't have to conclude but if it proceeds to trial, that is when double jeopardy applies. All of the cases that are either dismissed by petition by the DA are done before a hearing is done or at a pre-trial phase. It is not only DA who can request this from the judge but even the defense attorney can request if a dismissal is requested by the DA.

The double jeopardy rule after arraignment depends but it is rarely considered. Because it is not a trial or at that stage. Pre-trial hearings or discovery hearings are not trials per se. Even in other commonwealth jurisdictions or jurisdictions that follow the common law system. Dismissal during the pretrial phase doesn't necessarily mean double jeopardy can apply and it can only be considered if there is a significant delay in the process ie arraignment after 9 months at court (because the arraignment should take place within 6 months ), just that the term is not used over those jurisdictions in regards 'prejudice or without prejudice). However, it is used in the American Jurisdiction.

[JohnGili]

The only thing that annoys me, is that pleas are done in an OCCLY manner. Every time, I log on and I have a client saying ' I plead guilty and has no idea about no contest plea. It is either plea guilty or not guilty. This has happened so many times, where a client wants to have a trial but because they were not told /b properly about the pleas. They plead guilty and expect their lawyer to fight this. Just last night, I had a client asking that from me, I told him I will try my best but no promises or report if he has the necessary screenshots. This is the fourth time this has happened because there is no IC mechanism to challenge a guilty plea.

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

12 hours ago, JohnGili said:

The double jeopardy rule after arraignment depends but it is rarely considered. Because it is not a trial or at that stage. Pre-trial hearings or discovery hearings are not trials per se. Even in other commonwealth jurisdictions or jurisdictions that follow the common law system. Dismissal during the pretrial phase doesn't necessarily mean double jeopardy can apply and it can only be considered if there is a significant delay in the process ie arraignment after 9 months at court (because the arraignment should take place within 6 months ), just that the term is not used over those jurisdictions in regards 'prejudice or without prejudice). However, it is used in the American Jurisdiction.

I disagree that whether double jeopardy  attaches after arraignment depends on whether there was delay.   No; it depends on  when, in non-jury trials, the defendant is considered exposed to the risk of conviction (Downum).   As already said above,  in jury trials, the accused is exposed to the risk of conviction when the trial begins (Serfass) and the trial begins, for Fifth Amendment purposes, once the jury is empanelled (Crist).  In my view, in a non-jury situation, an accused is at the risk of conviction once they have been brought to appear before the judge and entered any plea — in other words, they are exposed to the risk of conviction once they have been arraigned.   As far as I know,  there has not been any  authoritative or judicial statement as to this because non-jury trials are rare.

 

Double jeopardy also depends on whether the first court made a procedural ruling or substantive one when terminating the case — this was explored in the article.  (Remember: there are two questions in all double jeopardy problems, including 1. was the accused in jeopardy / were they exposed to the risk of conviction, and 2. if so, is the second prosecution relying on the same issues that were substantively resolved in the first proceeding).

 

By bringing delay into the analysis, you seem to have conflated the speedy-trial guarantee (Sixth Amendment) with the double-jeopardy guarantee (Fifth Amendment).  
 

In any event, as Bopsy pointed out, this isn’t exactly the appropriate ”forum”  for this discussion.  Feel free to follow up in a DM.

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[JohnGili]

2 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

I disagree that whether double jeopardy  attaches after arraignment depends on whether there was delay.   No; it depends on  when, in non-jury trials, the defendant is considered exposed to the risk of conviction (Downum).   As already said above,  in jury trials, the accused is exposed to the risk of conviction when the trial begins (Serfass) and the trial begins, for Fifth Amendment purposes, once the jury is panelled (Crist).  In my view, in a non-jury situation, an accused is at the risk of conviction once they have appears before the judge and entered a not-guilty plea — in other words, they are exposed to the risk of conviction once they have been arraigned.   As far as I know,  there has not been any  authoritative or judicial statement as to this because non-jury trials are rare.  It also depends on whether the first court made a procedural ruling or substantive one when terminating the case — this was explored in the article.

 

By bringing delay into the analysis, you seemed to have conflated the speedy-trial guarantee (Sixth Amendment) with the double-jeopardy guarantee (Fifth Amendment).  
 

In any event, as Bopsy pointed out, this isn’t exactly the appropriate ”forum”  for this discussion.  Feel free to follow up in a DM.

Sure but I am not conflating the two. If you want to continue just DM me anytime. I am more than happy to respond. 

[goddessoflife]

L&A, PM me if you want it unarchived.