Re the scenarios you hear about occasionally where someone is accused of a crime and thrown into jail, and then sits there for months and months until it is proved that the original charges were bogus, how does that happen exactly? I’m not going to pretend I understand the intricacies of legal procedure, but as a layman it concerns me that a policeman could this, and if I have no money or resources to pledge in order to bond out I’m going to to sit in jail until a determination is made re my guilt.
Using the details involved in this scenario “Mints Believed To Be Crack Land Man In Jail” if he did not have the money to bond out was he really limited to sitting in jail? Couldn’t he have called legal services? Is three months a reasonable amount of time to get a drug test completed?
If you were guilty of another crime, then it’s karma.
If you’re entirely innocent then it’s Life In The Big City.
The rule that life is supposed to be fair was repealed last year.
Since the overwhelming majority of clients for public defenders are guilty, they typically have the attitude that all their clients are and they tend to treat their clients like garbage. They also assume the police are telling the truth.
There was a survey done a few years ago by the local fish wrapper and they found that in several counties in the state years would go by without the PDs getting any clients off of charges. It was a non-stop stream of “just plead to a lesser charge 'cause I’m not paid well enough to actually go to trial and if you force me to go to trial, me, the DA and the judge are going to Not Be Happy.”
In NC you can get paid if you spend years in jail and are found to be not guilty after a conviction. You get paid $10k or so per year. But it only applies after you are convicted and then the conviction is overturned.
I have a feeling this happens all the time, we just don’t hear about because they’re poor, and don’t have the money to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and get media attention. I think what the cops did to this guy is despicable. They had no proof whatsoever that he had cocaine and they let him rot in jail for 3 months, towed and auctioned his car, he lost his apartment and his job. Sickening.
Hey, way to paint with a broad brush there, tiger.
I’ve had many clients who I believed to be innocent, one who was later found actually innocent (he was accused of killing his identical twin brother in a home invasion because his “bloody handprint” was found on the wall–turns out the print wasn’t in blood and the crime lab screwed up), some who were found not guilty at trial, some who weren’t, and some clients who I believed to be guilty who were found not guilty at trial. And I can’t say I treated any of them differently than any other.
A woman who once worked as a director of music and programming at my church moonlighted as a nurse to support her two kids. She was really dedicated in her work and was the first to welcome us to the church when we first began going.
Last year, she was charged with killing a disabled boy in her care in 2002. What facts have come to light so far and my own (admittedly biased) opinion of this person, who I consider a friend, have led me to believe that this is a case of a DA’s office grasping for straws to wrap up a case before it gets any colder. I wouldn’t say the charges are bogus, but there seems to be a lot that doesn’t jibe with reality.
Anyway, I think this woman has a good of being found not guilty, probably because she is innocent. She will have been in jail for over a year before her trial gets underway. Not just any jail, either, but a prison that is well known locally for being poorly-run and overcrowded. I pray for her and her family often. Her exchanges from prison have been illuminating, but she seems to keep finding ways of muddling through.
OJ was in jail for a year before he got off in his murder trial. However Robert Blake got bail and stayed home with a monitor before his trial.
In my county it’s very rare for a person charged with murder to be allowed bail. In some cases the bail is so high - $3 mil or so - the person can’t pay the bail so they stay in jail until trial.
If the charges are “bogus” such that there was nothing to them at all, and the prosecutor and/or police were demonstrably abusing their authority, then yes, the wrongly-jailed person can sue and quite possibly collect. Depends on the jurisdiction, of course. On the other hand, if there was some substance to the charge, the prosecutor and police did nothing wrong as such but were just mistaken, and the jailed person is eventually acquitted, then no, there’s usually nothing he or she can do.
May I add that virtually all of the public defenders with whom I’ve had the pleasure of coming into contact are diligent, hard-working and determined to get the best possible outcome for their clients. It happens, IMHO, that most of their clients are guilty, and in many of those cases a plea bargain is the best possible outcome.
You’re entitled to a “speedy and public trial” under the Sixth Amendment. Different states define what “speedy” is, and of course the judge is free to set bail at whatever amount he deems reasonable if he’s not willing to grant a personal bond. IANAFloridaL and don’t know Florida law, but this mint case would definitely be unusual here in Ohio. I don’t know any judge who, without more, would keep someone in custody for three months just for a small suspected amount of crack cocaine.
Don’t some countries apply the “English rule” to criminal cases and award legal costs to defendents who’ve been acquitted? I remember reading somewhere that Germany (not a common law jurisdiction) gives compenstation to acquitted defendents who were imprisoned before/during the trial, is that true?
Nationwide around 90% of all criminal cases are resolved with a plea bargain, which takes up minimal court time.
You can only be held a short time (24 - 72 hours depending on area) without being charged. Then you go to a judge who sets or denies bail and such.
This can become problematic for various reason. For instance, I recall in Chicago they had a case where a bunch of 18 and 19 year old girls where at a party where meth and coke were being used. They were arrested, and the DA offered them a plea bargain. The public defender told them to take it. One of the girls had her own laywer, who told her not to take it, it was a bad deal.
Then the one who didn’t “rotted” in jail for six months, and when it came to trial the judge said “Improper evidence.” And dismissed the case immediately. The story came in as the other girls who took the plea bargain, now have a felony record, they’re on probation, etc etc. The court found the plea bargain stands. If these girls had better lawyers they would’ve been out
The thing is we’re taught that the judicial system is about getting at the truth and it’s not.
The DA has a job, that is to convict whoever is charged. DA’s say it’s not up to them to find the truth, that is the cops job. Of course the police counter back with, I just write the ticket or I just arrest you, you’ll have your say in court.
So once again, we have a system where it pays to have connections or the money to get them.