Posted on 05/28/2002 5:04:16 PM PDT by marshmallow
Bump
Bet that judge will NEVER again make that mistake when this is reversed upon appeal....
Last time I checked, Constitutional rights were not dependant upon attire.
PSSSST Mommy was right there! She has worked around courts long enough to have a clue.Her bet was wrong.
Child, 16 yr old convicted car thief standing up in court saying "I need another lawyer cause the lawyer mommy hired LOST MY CRIMINAL CASE! I didnt do nuthin wrong 'cept get caught stealing a car or two.Lawyers have to deal with courts, not convicted car thiefs.I just a child! I had no idea stealing was illegal! Someone got to help me! I need another lawyer! Where Jesse?!"
but my point still stands....
The kid asked for a lawyer, and no judge has the right to deny him that.
These technicalities you so blithely are willing to ignore are what keeps our system from being the rubber-stamp that the old Soviet trial system was.
Says the Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Look, I'm generally what could be characterized as a "law-and-order" type. I think criminals deserve what they get-- but the system needs all its checks in place to prevent innocents from being railroaded. And if those systems mean a few guilty get off, so be it. God will deal with them
The article does mention why the private attorney did not represent the offender. The mother had declined the PD and hired a private attorney and her money ran out.
To avoid a conflict of interest in a case involving co-defendants, only one is represented by the State, the others are sub- contracted out to private attorneys.
The co-defendant's attorney could not speak out, her role was to represent her client.
To those argueing that the offenders civil rights were violated remember, the offender had already attended an adjudicatory hearing where he was represented,he had pled guilty, hence the probation. This was the disposition or restitution hearing,there is no possibility of jail time or any other punishment except financial restitution for his high jinks,this is where the juvenile learns that crime does not pay.
Contrary to public opinion, Florida's PD's are not free--
If you are found guilty,most judges now require the defendant to pay attorneys fees to the PD's office.
To Mrs. Castillo-- "Law and Order" is a tv show,(and bears no resemblance to real life,) which is why they can conjure up a lawyer in a minute, read a brief in 30 secs,and argue with passion for another 30 secs.
Asking for a PD an hour before a trial is like getting legal adice from a baliff,(extremely low success rate). I wish you and your son the very best in your future endevours.
The judge faces no penalties for allowing the trial to proceed except in the minds of liberals and those that do not read the article.
Obviously, you are wrong, but my court attendence has nothing to do with it. If you're trying to make a point that normal procedure would dictate something then you've missed the point of the story that this was not the behavior expected from the judge. It's the judge that's at issue here, not the defendent.
What law would that be?
Oh I don't know. Maybe the one they talk about in the story.
"I'm like, dang. The way they speak and the way they put their words, I don't understand!"
You gonna live here, better learn our ways son!
Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Freeregards.
It was obviously a ploy by his previous lawyer and his parent to attempt to avoid the penalty phase of the proceedings.Justice will only be denied in THIS case if the convicted car thief gets furthor court time.
You've got it backwards. He did have a lawyer. In fact, there was an attorney of record who didn't show up for the hearing because Mom couldn't pay him. The judge was not supposed to release the lawyer from his obligation to continue representation to the kid despite the lack of payment. See, that's what lawyers are supposed to do. Once the kid asked for a lawyer, I've outlined what the judge is supposed to do by law.
Your letter of the law interprtation of events here does not in any way resemble justice IMHO.Justice for whom? The victim or the adjudged guilty perpetrator? There comes a point when even lawyers, must believe they should be the first ones killed, for the continued existance of a rational society, supposedly committed to justice for all, not just the clients of lawyers.
Oh, that silly Constitution (check out amendments number 4, 5 & 6 for starters)....so justice should only apply to some, not all--isn't that what you're saying? A one week delay--or even a few day's delay while the kid contacted the public defender's office--would not have impeded justice nor the order for restitution. A judge should dot every i and cross every t. This one didn't. See, this is how judges get reversed, and this is how judges get into trouble--and, as I pointed out, how this kid may get out of paying the restitution because the judge made reversible errors, glaring, fundamental errors. Had the judge complied with the law--and that's what he's supposed to do, otherwise he wouldn't be wearing that nice, black robe--there wouldn't be appeals or investigations, and most certainly, there will be both.
Justice isn't casual, nor is it optional. Because of the judge's errors, justice for the victims of the kid's crimes will be at best postponed, at worst, the victim will get no justice at all.
Once all the formalities of justice are carried out, I have no problem with the sentance. I just want to see all the safeguards followed.
Many on this board are attributing the lack of a lawyer to nefarious intent. I would submit we dont know enough to determine that. I'm inclined to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Thats the way our Constitution is skewed...
Well, that's pretty easy. I read the article. I highlighted the pertinent parts.
But I'm amazed that you'd defend this judge simply because you assume he's a Republican. In fact, simply because he was appointed by Jeb doesn't mean he's a Republican--but the one thing I expect from the judiciary is non-partisanship when they're on the bench.
I also expect a knowledge of the fundamentals of the law. This judge failed.
TAMPA -- The 16-year-old boy sat before the Hillsborough County judge, asking for an attorney. He didn't understand what was going on, he kept saying.
Juan Carlos Elias was in the middle of a restitution hearing. He had pleaded guilty to stealing one car and burglarizing another. Reimbursing the victim was the issue at hand now.
But Elias said he didn't know what restitution meant. His frustrated mother repeatedly rose from the first row, instructing her son in Spanish.
Judge Richard Nielsen, relatively new to the bench, had her tossed out of his courtroom.
"You don't have a lawyer, Mr. Elias," Nielsen said. "So you're going to represent yourself in this matter."
And so, for more than two hours on May 6, the 16-year-old struggled to deal with the arcane language and procedures of a courtroom. It was a scene unfamiliar to some observers. Under Florida law, juveniles are entitled to legal counsel unless they and their parents waive that right.
"Mr. Elias, any objection to these exhibits?" Nielsen asked at one point, referring to car repair bills submitted as evidence.
"I don't have nobody representing me?" said Elias. "I don't understand these things."
"Show these to Mr. Elias," Nielsen instructed the prosecutor.
Soon after, Nielsen asked Elias whether he had trouble understanding English.
"No, but sometimes the words you all use, like, um, I don't really get 'em that much. But I understand English," said Elias, whose family is Puerto Rican.
Restitution hearings are routine and are rarely covered by the press. A reporter for the St. Petersburg Times chanced upon Elias' hearing. His mother later gave a tape recording of the proceeding to the reporter.
<snip>
"A judge has to find that it's a knowing waiver," Richards said. "If the child understands, the parent understands that they're waiving their right, and they say, "No, we don't want an attorney,' then (an attorney) won't be appointed."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.