Mods: This is a fictional scenario tangentially related to my work. Though I’m asking this question in order to perform my job better, this is not a petition for legal advice.
A part of my duties requires reading though sentences of charges from various states. I keep coming across a California disposition of “dismissed / furtherance of justice”. As far as I can tell, this only occurs in CA.
I’ve asked around the office and so far, people haven’t come up with anything substantial. One guy, a veteran of this work that tends to know everything about it, guessed that it was essentially a judge saying “Are you kidding? We have bigger fish to fry. This case is dismissed in the interest of saving time and the furtherance of justice.” He did know it was a CA thing without me mentioning where the case was from. From what google turns up, it has something to do with the three-strike law and the prosecutor’s/judge’s ability to ignore prior felonies. However, this may just be barely related and the phrase is similarly used in those cases.
So the questions, specifically:
What is the legal definition of “Furtherance of Justice”?
How does it apply to the three-strike law? If it has something to do with prior felonies, why would it show up next to “dismissed”? And why is it in cases w/o prior convictions?
Would it turn up when not related to a felony, but a lesser crime?
How should this color my perception of the case? Should I regard the person as guilty but off the hook, like with a plea bargain, or should I assume the person was brought in for cussing out a cop and given a crap charge?
Again, I understand that this isn’t legal advice. I especially understand that responses to Q4 are opinions and generalizations, and I should take them as such.
I am not trained in California Law, but I am a qualified lawyer. “Furtherence of Justice” sounds suspiciouly like the “in the interests of justice”, which is a catch all term meaning that justice would be served if a certain measure is done or not done, even though it may not stricty be speaking be premissable.
For example in many jurisdictions inadmissable evidence may be allowed if it would be in the interests of justice to hear it.
Because they don’t know what the phrase means. They’re as lost as I am. And for the most part, it’s irrelevant to my clerical decisions anyway. I just want to know for my own edification.
Without nailing down a textbook definition, “in the interest of justice” or “in the furtherance of justice” means that, while a technical adherence to the language of the law might result in a conviction, the concept of fairness and justice to be espoused by the courts suggests that adhering to the letter of the law is not appropriate. For example, “this is the fourth time that defendant, aged 19, has appeared before this court charged with going 36 in a 35 MPH zone, each charge having been levied by the same officer, whose daughter is engaged to be married to defendant against said officer’s wishes. The [court/state] deems that prosecution of this case is without merit, and moves for dismissal in the [interest/furtherance] of justice.”
Furtherance of justice is a catch-all reason for dismissal used by prosecutors in California. What it means is, essentially, the district attorney refuses to devote resources to prosecuting the alleged offense. And justice is better served by tossing the case out of court.
For example, if there were sticky 4th waiver issues (the kind that might need to be litigated to be resolved), or actual 4th amendment violations, and the underlying crime is a misdemeanor, many prosecutors will just let it go. Dismissed in furtherance of justice.
I believe the three strikes stuff you’ve turned up on google is just an example of the same terminology being used in a different arena.
How should you regard it? It means the person was arrested for X. The prosecutor, for whatever reason, did not even charge the person for X. There was no plea bargain. The person was never charged.
My quick and dirty Google scan seems to indicate that it is used by prosecutors and judges when they want to quash a conviction for the purpose of not activating California’s three-strike consequences.
I think you should interpret it as meaning that three-strike laws make for really shitty penology and distorted rap sheets. You might protest you want a more clear-cut answer; but my point about distortion is that such clarity is not possible.
California Penal Code 1385(a): “The judge or magistrate may, either of his or her own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed.”
The phrase “in the furtherance of justice” has not been statutorily defined. In various cases, the court has defined this phrase to mean “consideration both of the constitutional rights of the defendant and the interests of society represented by the People.”
In People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996), The state Supreme Court ruled that depriving judges of this power via legislation (instant the three-strikes law) violates separation of powers.
For a scholarly but not-difficult-to-understand discussion of “dismissed in the furtherance of justice,” read the paper at this link: http://www.threestrikes.org/JEWalsh.pdf
As far as I can tell it imply s that you were guilty, but in order to free things up, they let you slide, and the term “Furtherance of justice” is to tell everyone who deals with you in the future that you were guilty of everything you were charged with.
AKA cut this guy the exact opposite of slack.
I get hammered any time I have contact with the “LAW” and they have time to look me up, and that was over a decade ago.
OH, a CDL driver who wants to do the court probation so the ticket does not go on your license, no problem.
When I ask for the same thing the DA tells me (with attitude) it will be an additional $300 than the last guy, and all the while the judge, bailiff and traffic cops are giving me a dirty look.
That’s the offer on the table, take it or leave it!
Aw shucks, my first zombie thread by a drive-by newbie! I’m so proud. I haven’t done any work these past two years because every day, I come in to the office and just stare at this one record, not knowing what to do. I keep thinking “I sure hope someone else posts in that thread,” and finally it’s happened! Now that I know to cut him the opposite of slack, I can move on with my life.
When words are not specifically defined, statutory construction mandates the everyday ordinary dictionary meaning to appply, unless it is a fixed term of art.
We all know what Justice is, so “Furtherance” would mean in the promotion of fairness, equity, etc., any further action on a complaint would serve no legitimate government/societal interest.
As a comparitive example, this is from the Ohio Rules of criminal procedure: (bold is mine)
RULE 32.1 Withdrawal of Guilty Plea
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.
The law may permit a denial of a guilty plea withdrawal, but to serve and promote justice, the court will permit it.
Courts of Equity/Chancery are obsolete, but the criminal process still affords Due Process, which can include fairness, etc.
There is a doctrine in law called Absurdity. This means although a conclusion of law not really arguable, the conclusion, if applied, would result in an absurd ruling and NOT be in the interest of justice.
The names may be still in use. I do know New Jersey used to, or still does, have Chancery Courts. I learned that when researching some law about smoking torts; Shimp v. New Jersey Bell.
What I meant was, there are no courts that operate strictly by fairness alone.
In fact, that’s the suggestion or interpretation, not the implication. Charged but not found guilty, but not found not guilty… meaning, likely - guilty but we gave him one break. Take it back one ticket at a time.
Hah! If only I could’ve written just that one line for all those Political Philosophy term papers in college. It’s kind of like saying to a lawyer “We all know what manslaughter is.”