http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_aide
I was stunned by the end of the article. The officer will be in Iraq and a trial will be impossible. Well, why plead to anything? Shouldn’t the state have to dismiss the charges?
Perhaps they decided the bad publicity is not worth it.
Regards,
Shodan
No.
How would the State prosecute without the testimony of the arresting officer?
Maybe this is a legal question rather than a police question, but if Blumenthal chose to go to trial, wouldn’t he have the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him?
I assume they couldn’t move the trial date up so the officer could testify. What would they do then? Have the officer submit a sworn statement?
Regards,
Shodan
The article says a trial would be impossible. If a trial is impossible, then I also don’t understand why he would plea guilty. Couldn’t he argue after enough time had passed that the State was depriving him of his right to a speedy trial?
One certainly can’t be convicted of a crime without a trial, that’s pretty basic stuff–and if the trial was impossible, then I can’t see why he’d plea out.
A trial on more serious charges (reckless driving, perhaps?) would be impossible, leading me to the conclusion that other evidence, like BAL analyses or video, has him dead to rights. At that point, a plea saves Blumenthal the risk, expense, and embarrassment of a trial while costing him very little that he might have gained in court.
Paging Bricker.
Another vote for publicity problems. I think the State can continue a trial if a witness is deployed–I know that works that way in civil cases where I am. I think there’s a Federal law, but I’ll wait for an expert to chime in.
Pleading out just puts an end to it.
If a TV show can bring back someone on active duty just to appear for five minutes and make the family and advertisers happy, surely the State can bring back a star witness to testify for 30 minutes in a courtroom.
This happened to a friend of mine. He got nabbed for something minor, cause he was an idiot and decided to act out in front of the cop. His trial was moved by a month, then by a year, the year delay being due to the arresting officer getting deployed. When the case went to trial a year later his lawyer argued that the trial wasn’t “swift and fair” enough, the prosecutor agreed, all ended in a null proc.
What’s it take to get a little respect around here?
I am sure we would be glad to hear your opinion on the legal issues, if you like.
Regards,
Shodan
He refused to submit to a test, so New Hampshire automatically revoked his right to drive within the State. My guess is he copped to a motor vehicle violation, which doesn’t even rise to the level of a misdemeanor.
Yes, but a video or a BAL analysis has to be presented into evidence and vouched for by someone: the arresting officer. It can’t just exist on its own without someone to introduce it.
But even at that you have some due process rights. You can challenge the fact that the officer didn’t have probable cause to pull you over in the first place. And, again, with no officer to testify that he had that cause, even the implied consent should be tossed.
Every state has speedy trial requirements. If the defense insists on a speedy trial, the state has to do it, or is out of luck (at least as I understand it).
Yeah, but we are talking about a low-level misdemeanor here. Is the state going to pay to fly this guy back for that and go through the hassle with the feds? If it was rape or murder one, probably, but surely they would let a DUI fall by the wayside.
Which leads me back to my OP.