Hard to say. My field is not criminal law, so I have very little first-hand experience with this. Newly appointed judges (or those who’ve been transferred to the criminal bench for the first time) may never have had to hold a Faretta colloquy before. Frankly, criminal law is a vast field and it’s an unusual judge who has the entire body of law with regard to the rights of a defendant at his fingertips.
Mentioning your rights is fine. Continuing to mention them when the judge has rejected an argument is contempt. You state whatever it is that you object to, the judge rules, and you move on. If the judge makes a mistake, that’s for an appellate court to correct (or you can file a written motion explaining in more detail why the judge was wrong).
Judges who make mistakes generally aren’t guilty of anything. Judges who make too many mistakes, or who knowingly infringe on defendants’ rights can be removed from the bench. In most states, that’s handled by a body called a judicial qualifications commission.
my girlfriends son went to court today.
on the felony charge(s) related to that oily substance they (the officer) claimed was an extract from a marijuana plant.
it was determined to be nothing illegal it seems.
his charges were dismissed, cost to state.
i haven’t talked to her son yet, this came from mom.
Wait, so I’ve lost track of the chronology of things . . .
At what stage of this whole process did the stuff get lab-tested? Before he entered a plea or after? And who ended up paying for that?
ETA: Just noticing also, we have at least some other progress in this case: In post #1, the kid’s mother was OP’s friend. Now, kid’s mother is OP’s girlfriend.
she’s a friend of mine that’s a girl. she’s a girl/friend vs a guy/friend. i never say guy friend though. they’re just friends. we did date a long time ago. we’re so far in the friend zone now though it’d be like doing my sister.
anyway, the state had to test the stuff. if it would’ve been what they claimed it was, or anything else illegal, I’m sure their cost would roll downhill to the person with charges pending.
his charges were dropped, or dismissed or whatever it is that they’re not pursuing him anymore.
regarding the when did they proceed with testing it. that process was his whole gripe.
the state knows they have to have their lab confirm or deny the results of the roadside test kit IF the person charged doesn’t work something out with the d.a. (like pleading guilty to lessor charges, charges reduced after successful probation, etc…) prior to the case making it’s way to the judges desk. to confirm, this approach gets no further analysis.
if the person charged didn’t, can’t, won’t work out something with the d.a., then they enter a plea of not guilty, which puts the process into motion of the states lab testing whatever needs testing.
his (her son) problem with the courts rules was that he was not allowed to represent himself in a drug case and he was being forced to get a lawyer before entering the not guilty plea. his (rational) thought was if you test it and it’s nothing illegal, then he won’t need a lawyer. their way, he’s out a good deal of cash he had to pay someone to say ‘not guilty’ for him to get the ball rolling, only to arrive at the same end spot of not really needing a lawyer to begin with.
i think it ended up costing him $750 to pay a lawyer to represent him (say not guilty for him) in this case.
something i see as b.s. regarding the judges rules was that he wouldn’t let him represent himself in this (or any) drug case, yet he had no problem letting him represent himself if he would’ve wanted to have worked out something out with the d.a.
that’s clearly a way of making path B more difficult than should be so path A will seem more attractive and has not dick to do with his actual competency or his constitutional right to defend himself that they were depriving him of.
glancing over this thread again reminded me that I’d only thanked you once and not responded to your later postings. you are obviously very knowledgeable in your field and your well thought out responses and links prompted me to look into some things that i probably wouldn’t have otherwise, and as a result, become more knowledgeable (albeit a bit more jaded in some respects) of some of the inner workings of our criminal justice system.
tell your employer you deserve a raise, i said so.
A small personal amount of marijuana or cannabis oil is not a felony in any U.S. state. Either you have been given incorrect information or there was more to the story than you were originally told.
A felony conviction is absolutely devastating to a young person’s future. Even a misdemeanor possession of marijuana charge can hurt employment chances for several years. I know that $1,500 is a lot of money to most people, but compared to trying legal DIY and potentially and literally messing up your entire life by walking into court and saying/doing the wrong thing, it is an absolute bargain.
I also agree with others that the judge likely saw that the young man was doing himself a disservice and was trying to head off a disaster.
as I’m to understand it, marijuana extracts/hash oil, which is what he was charged with possessing is a felony in my state.
two things he knew.
the first was what was in the container of his wasn’t anything illegal.
the second was he didn’t have the money to hire any type of attorney.
a nineteen year old that was happily on his way to go bang his similar aged girlfriend was pulled over, charged with a crime he wasn’t guilty of, got his car impounded, had to go into debt borrowing bail money & impound fees. he then is told he’s going to have to go further in debt hiring an attorney because fuck his constitutional rights.
the last thing he was thinking was long term consequences.
he was thinking the game is rigged against him and he was right to think that (did you read the links i posted above?).
the only way an attorney was going to have an impact on the outcome of this is if he had to go to trial. the only way that was going to happen is if they swapped out what they took of his with something that was illegal (to substantiate the original test results). if they were going to do that, he was gonna be screwed lawyer or not.
I’m less of the opinion he should’ve happily spent whatever money ‘the system’ was forcing him to & I’m more of the opinion of being proud of him for standing up for himself and not being intimidated by the powers that be and accepting some lessor charge under the fear of the maximum penalty.
he’ll still have the arrest on his record.
he’s still out the first cash he didn’t have.
he was forced to spend more.
he was innocent the whole time.
welcome to the justice system.
the ‘system’ actively encouraged him to plead guilty to charges, tried to intimidate him into doing so.
the ‘system’ refused him his constitutional right to defend himself.
the ‘system’ told him a court appointed attorney would not be available to him on the basis he bonded out of jail (as it turns out, it’s not as cut and dry as that at all, something they mis-informed him on).
a lot of innocent people with limited funds like him would’ve taken the ‘easy route’ and ended up with a conviction for no reason (as should be evident from the links i provided).
when the system is more concerned with the truth than it is with convictions, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
*i realize that’s ↑ a fantasy land, unobtainable end goal. i realize most people are in fact guilty. i don’t have the solutions. I’m just sympathetic to his having to have had worked so hard to make things arrive at the end goal that ideally would require much less effort and financial outlay for the kid.
Look into getting it expunged. I’m sure it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I helped my cousin get his arrest expunged from when he was a teenager and the charges were dropped. It took filling out a few forms and a little bit of running around, but, at least here in Chicago, it was something a reasonably intelligent adult could handle by themselves. At the end of the process, all the records were sent back to him, and his arrest no longer showed up at the court database when you looked up criminal records.
