Chameleon12

Liberty and justice for all? A frustrating experience
by US~Observer Staff

I want to share a frustrating experience I had recently that will be a good lead-in to this month’s topic.

While observing court, I happened to see a woman whose case was on for an arraignment on a misdemeanor. To make a long story short, I will summarize the pertinent information. This woman believed she was not guilty of the offense with which she was charged. She politely declined the judge’s generous offer to reduce her misdemeanor charge to a violation (which is a significant reduction as violations are not “crimes,” generally speaking), and she exited the courtroom.

She re-entered the courtroom 10 minutes later, and I knew she had changed her mind about contesting the criminal charge. I was able to make contact with her and informed her that I’d review her case at no charge. I am a defense lawyer. She expressed a great deal of gratitude but ultimately, after experiencing some additional turmoil, decided to plead guilty because she “could not handle court.”

What I want to convey is that this woman genuinely believed she was not guilty, had an attorney offer to review her case for free and pleaded guilty anyway.

6th amendment provides right to counsel

The 6th amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to … have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

At the outset, it is important to understand what a “criminal prosecution” is. A “criminal prosecution” is when a prosecutorial agency (i.e., city attorney, district attorney, attorney general, U.S. attorney, etc.) has filed a complaint against a citizen alleging that the citizen has committed a crime. A quick rule of thumb to determine whether any given law is criminal is whether it is punishable by any amount of time in jail or prison. There may be some exceptions; but, as I said, this is a good rule of thumb.

Although a person almost always has the right to be represented by an attorney, “criminal prosecutions” are unique, which is evidenced by their specific reference in the 6th amendment. “Criminal prosecutions” are unique because on the one hand you have the executive branch of government with its vast authority and apparent limitless resources threatening the life and liberty of the accused and on the other hand you have an individual citizen who, oftentimes, is already being condemned by his peers due to publicity.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court, in addressing the importance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, said: “[A criminal defendant] requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” As someone who is intimately involved in criminal prosecutions, I completely agree with the sentiments of the Supreme Court.

Additionally, we must all understand that there is more at stake than just any one person’s interest in any given case. Every time a person is prosecuted and the government agents involved were lazy, corrupt or just plain wrong and the accused does not contest it, a precedent is set for the next person. It sends a message to our government: “We don’t care that you are lazy, corrupt or just plain wrong. You may continue doing what you are doing.”

A good analogy highlighting this concept would be in how a child tests the rules of his parents. The child will engage in behavior violating the rule so long as the parents permit it. If the parents do nothing to enforce the rule, there is no reason for the child to adhere to it.

So it is with our government. The government has been given rules. But if we, the citizenry, do not assert our rights, then the government will progressively continue to violate them. When I was a prosecutor, I once had an officer request criminal charges against a person for a criminal code section that did not exist. I am confident that there are prosecutors who would have charged the person for the alleged crime that did not exist. I am also certain there are people who would have walked into court at their arraignment and plead guilty to the alleged crime that did not exist.

Having the assistance of competent legal counsel is a fundamental right we may assert to help encourage and compel our government to “play by the rules.” Going back to the woman who opted to plead guilty to a crime she believed she did not commit, what has she gained? Practically speaking, she’s gained nothing. What has she lost? She probably lost a couple hundred dollars in fines and fees while acquiescing to a government that may have been prosecuting her wrongfully. This acquiescence encourages the government to maintain the status quo, and acquiescence to an overreaching government is not conducive to maintaining liberty.

If you find yourself on the defending end of a “criminal prosecution,” I encourage you to assert your rights. Find a lawyer you can trust (no snickering; they are out there), and see if they’ll give you some feedback on your case. It doesn’t matter whether it is a felony, misdemeanor or infraction/violation, do not acquiesce. Our liberty is at stake.

On June 1, 1837, Daniel Webster said:


I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe … Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger.

—Nathan Wente

teabag09

Nathan, many years ago my mother was given a ticket for running a stop sign. In court the Judge listened to the officer and then my mom.

My mother told the Judge that the second car from the first one stopped could, if the view was clear, do a roll through the right hand turn. The Judge wasn't convinced and continued the case. Long story short. Under Virginia Law my mother was right and the officer was instructed to study traffic law and the Judge said he was instructing himself to do the same.

My Mother was a strict right from wrong feminist before Gloria or any of the rest came along. She was a 1st Lt. in the navy during WW11 and was assigned with intelligence in DC, taught college in her twenties and high school after we were all in school. She didn't have computers like we do today but knew how to use the library.

I agree 100% with your assessment. More people need to read up and know their rights.

Mike

F.D.R.

OK lawyers, other than using the b****t box can we legal v****g U.S. citizens file a class action suit against the Federal or Supreme Court Judges for failing to uphold the letter of the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold?

boatbob2

In a NUT SHELL,there are MANY more crooked Lawyers and Judges,than there are good,honest ones.

Carol Kelly

But there are a lot of lawyers who love the law and love to see justice done. I've worked for some, so I know there are many good ones. Shakespeare was wrong.