For some reason I thought arraignment came before indictment. Am I still confused?
AFAICT the time line is
[ul][li]Ms. Jauch gets stopped for some traffic tickets.[/li][li]They run her name thru the system and find she has an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for something.[/li][li]So they arrest her.[/li][li]Some informant says she sold him some Xanax, which is a felony.[/li][li]She is indicted for the felony.[/li][li]There is a video showing that she is innocent.[/li][li]The DA didn’t look at the video, apparently relying on the word of the informant. Did he know the video existed? Who was the informant, and why did they believe him? [/li][li]Then she’s held for 96 days awaiting her arraignment hearing. [/li][li]Then before the arraignment, the DA looks at all the evidence, including the tape, and decides she is innocent.[/li][li]Then the outstanding warrant and the traffic tickets are dropped, or settled, or otherwise resolved.[/li][li]She sues.[/ul]I don’t speak legalese, but AFAICT she alleges that she was denied her rights because they didn’t have probable cause to detain her. The indictment is enough (in the court’s opinion) to overcome that - being indicted by a grand jury establishes probable cause to be arrested, or to be held. [/li]
The other allegation is that she was denied an attorney. But from the opinion linked above -
So she never got a public defender because she never asked for one, and the police never interrogated her.
“If you so desire, and cannot afford (an attorney), one will be appointed for you without charge before any questioning” is how I heard the Miranda warning of your rights. It appears to me that you have to say you want a lawyer before you get a public defender - they don’t assign one automatically.
This doesn’t mean everything is hunky-dory with her case, but it isn’t exactly that the cops scooped her off the street at random and held her against her will, cackling insanely as she screamed for a lawyer. She is apparently not bright enough to know that you have to say “I want a lawyer” before you get a lawyer. Even if she had 96 days to think it over.
No, its more like she got caught in the legal gears of our “system” and nobody gave a fuck. What is worse, that it might be deliberate oppression, or just standard operating procedure?
Assuming that she was at any time in a position to speak to someone who would get her a lawyer over those 96 days, are you saying that not knowing all your rights, and how to exercise, them means that you deserve to spend over 3 months in jail for a crime that never happened?
They had probable cause, based on the GJ Indictment, based on evidence that neither the GJ nor the DA ever looked at. If they didn’t look at the evidence, how could there be probable cause?
You make an assumption here. A reasonable assumption under normal circumstances, but an assumption nonetheless. You assume that they (Law enforcement) did what they were supposed to. What they said they did. The very fact that they indicted her on evidence they did not even look at destroys that assumption. I find it difficult to believe anything they would tell me after that.
She was served notice in January and was told that she would have to wait til August for a fucking bail hearing??? She has to wait 7 to 8 months in jail to get a bail hearing???? For the heinous crime of selling $40 worth of Xanax which they had proof all along that she did not do?
It is now my considered opinion that Mississippi should be expelled from the Union.
Grand Juries must be weird: they can indict a factually innocent woman with ease, but every time a police officer kills someone under shady circumstances the prosecutor “tries” to indict and fails.
AFAICT the grand jury indicted her based on the confidential informant. I don’t know if they were aware of the video.
As mentioned, it is not clear that they indicted her based on the video. And, as the court ruling says, she did not assert that she asked for a lawyer and was refused one, nor that the cops interrogated her without a lawyer. If she did ask and was denied, why wouldn’t she say so in her lawsuit?
Don’t believe what the cops say. Believe what her deposition says. If she was properly Mirandized, she was made aware to the extent possible of her rights, one of which was a public defender, if she desires one.
The outstanding warrant for which Ms. Jauch was arrested was for (surprise, surprise) selling a controlled substance (cite). She was warned of her rights before, she was warned of her rights this time, she never asserted her right to a lawyer. Now she is suing because she didn’t get what she didn’t ask for. It sucks, but at some point if you are going to get arrested as much as she did, you have to know enough to put on your big girl panties and ask for a lawyer when it is offered.
A factually innocent woman was incarcerated for 96 days because she didn’t know how to address a particular bureaucratic obstacle. Her life was probably destroyed. She probably lost her job. She probably lost her apartment. She probably lost all her savings. She probably lost all her possessions. I don’t think “ha ha she should have known better” is an appropriate response.
It’s interesting that you’re willing to criticize her for not recognizing the way that the legal system works, and for failing to do the minimum required to get herself counsel, but you’re apparently unconcerned with the failure of the actual, trained law enforcement and criminal justice employees to look at the most obvious piece of evidence in the case against her.
What was the bureaucratic obstacle that prevented her, when told that she could have a lawyer, from saying “Yes, I want a lawyer”?
That’s why we offer free legal representation to those who need it, if they ask. The difficulty comes from people who are too dumb to know that they need it.
I suspect Ms. Jauch was at a disadvantage - it was the only time in years when she wasn’t guilty, and she had no idea what to do.
We probably shouldn’t be gleeful when our legal system fucks over dumb people. Those, along with the mentally ill, the ignorant, are the people with the most to lose, and are the ones our system should be defending. The people here who weren’t ignorant but just didn’t give a shit should be held responsible for what happened to her.
Was she mirandized? The complaint says she was never interrogated, and my understanding is you don’t necessarily get the Miranda until they are ready to interrogate.
It’s astonishing to me that a person can sit in jail for 96 days and her rights were apparently in no way violated.
We do defend them - they can have free legal representation. All they have to do is ask.
I have not seen any evidence that Jauch was adjudicated mentally ill to the point of incompetence. If she is too ignorant to understand “if you want a lawyer we will appoint one for you for free” maybe she shouldn’t out driving badly enough to be stopped by the police, with an outstanding warrant for selling drugs on a different occasion.
It sux that she sat in jail for three months. What also sux is the idea that she is entitled to a large cash settlement because the system didn’t spoon-feed her her rights in small enough bites.
I don’t know, and my assumption that she was is no more than that - an assumption. And the only evidence I have is negative evidence - she doesn’t say she wasn’t Mirandized, and I expect her lawyer would have mentioned it in her suit if that were the case.
I have sufficient sympathy that I can spare some for an innocent person whose life was destroyed by an uncaring bureaucracy.
The cash settlement isn’t just to make her whole–and someone on the margin of society who was incarcerated for 96 days will have had their life upturned–the payment would also encourage the prosecutors to do their fucking jobs, which probably should include looking at the evidence at some point.
If, due to incompetence, I let something sit around for 96 days at my job I’d be fired. And justly so. But the responsible parties here are shielded by the law. They can fuck someone’s life over through share uncaring negligence and not pay any penalty at all. Maybe the demand for personal responsibility should be on the people who get paid to do a job, have the education, knowledge, and experience to do that job, but can’t be bothered to do it.
You know, instead of the factually innocent person who sat in jail for 96 days.
**Shodan **has shown us that she is not a nice person, therefore, she is not entitled to the same level of justice that he is. Therefore, it naturally follows that all these brownish people complaining about injustice are just making shit up. Case closed.
You say that she would get a free public defender. My understanding is that in most states, while you can be appointed a PD by the court even though you do not have the ability to pay, it is still not free. You are billed.
I do have a problem with the idea that you propose that if someone is not aware of how to protect their rights, then they don’t have the right to them.