United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Florida Man Jailed 41 Days Over 92 Grams of...Laundry Detergent
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/30/ ... n-jailed-41-days-over-92-grams
Published: Jan 30, 2019
Author: Joe Setyon
Post Date: 2019-02-04 06:42:45 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 8429
Comments: 92
A Florida man spent 41 days behind bars after police found a powdery white substance in his van last month. Spoiler alert: It wasn't drugs. Matthew Crull, 28, of Port St. Lucie, was sitting in his newly purchased van on December 5 when Martin County Sheriff's Office deputies arrived at the KFC parking lot where he had fallen asleep. Someone had reported the vehicle as suspicious, so police were investigating. When deputies searched his van, they found marijuana, a beer in the cup holder, and a bag with 92 grams of a white powder in it. Deputy Steven O'Leary claimed to have conducted a field drug test on the powder, and said it tested positive for heroin. "I just looked at him baffled and confused because I had no idea as to where 92 grams of heroin came from inside my van," Crull told WPTV later. "I really freaked out," he added to WBPF. "I started panicking and didn't really know what to think." Crull was right to be surprised. He says the alleged heroin was actually laundry detergent. But the truth wouldn't come out until much later. After his arrest, Crull was jailed for 41 days and charged with trafficking heroin. Due to the severity of the charges, there was no way he could afford bond. "It made the situation very real. [The judge] raised my bond to $100k to half a million dollars, so there was really no way I was getting out of jail," he told WPEC. Crull admits that he's been in trouble with the law before, but nothing this serious. "In the past, when I have gone to jail, it's been something where I knew I wasn't going to be there forever. It's a lot different than going to jail and the charge of trafficking of heroin carries a penalty of 25 years in prison," he explained to WPTV. Crull was eventually released, though not before he spent Christmas and New Year's behind bars, after the sheriff's office tested the "heroin" again and discovered the truth. The trafficking charge was dropped, as was the count of marijuana possession. This sort of story is more common than you might think. Reason has previously written about police misidentifying cotton candy and donut glaze for meth. In another case, North Carolina police bragged about a massive fentanyl bust, only to learn later that they had confiscated 13 pounds of sugar. The culprit in each of these cases were field test kits that provided false positives. Washington Post journalist (and former Reason staffer) Radley Balko even has a handy list of some of the things misidentified as drugs by field tests. Crull's case, meanwhile, may have been part of a larger scandal that had nothing to do with malfunctioning field drug tests. The arresting deputy, O'Leary, has been fired after the sheriff's office discovered other discrepancies. In three recent narcotics arrests, O'Leary claimed field tests had revealed drugs. Further crime lab testing revealed that wasn't true. O'Leary, who had been a Martin County sheriff's deputy since February 2018, had made about 80 drug arrests before being terminated. All of those are now under review, and 11 people, including Crull, have already been freed. "It would have been a travesty to risk leaving anyone in jail," Sheriff William Snyder said at a press conference Monday, explaining that some of those released did have drugs in their possession, just not as much as O'Leary had initially claimed. "It's better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person goes to jail," Snyder added. "Our goal is always justice, and there was more than enough reasonable doubt on our part on all those arrests that we would not have left anyone in jail one more minute." Spoiler alert: It wasn't heroin.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
#35. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)
Perform that same test in court, under oath, and if it doesn't come up positive, give the "hero" deputy's house to his victim. His car too, if it isn't a piece of shit. If the "hero" deputy objects, do it anyway, plus shoot his dog.
It could have been a faulty test kit. You blame the cop for that? Retest it in a lab and if the original test was a false positive, drop the charge. I believe that's the procedure.
Only it takes 42 days, or sometimes, 5 years for them to get around to doing that. One woman was basically extorted into taking a plea deal over a white crumb in her car which ruined her career with a felony conviction, and it took that long for the lab to do the real test and determine it was not what the field test said it was. I remember Nolu Chan seemingly not wanting to blame the legal system as broken for that, blaming instead the woman for not voluntarily remaining in jail, rejecting the advice of her court appointed attorney, taking it to court and risking years in prison, all without knowing the full ramifications of taking the plea deal. And that while she was aware of the possibility it was a piece of crack cocaine belonging to a hitchiker she had in the car at the time who denied any wrong doing. Yes, a wonderful system we have her. Let's continue to use these faulty field test kits that cannot even be admitted in court to totally screw over people's lives.
[misterwhite #40] [Pinguinite #42] I remember Nolu Chan seemingly not wanting to blame the legal system as broken for that, blaming instead the woman for not voluntarily remaining in jail, rejecting the advice of her court appointed attorney, taking it to court and risking years in prison, all without knowing the full ramifications of taking the plea deal. And that while she was aware of the possibility it was a piece of crack cocaine belonging to a hitchiker she had in the car at the time who denied any wrong doing. It did not take 5 years, or even 1 year, to test the sample. Albritton was arrested August 3, 2010, booked on August 4, 2010 at 3:37 a.m., and was convicted upon her plea of guilty on August 5, 2010. Following a guilty plea, confirmatory lab testing loses urgency. The lab test was performed on February 28, 2011. There was no hitchhiker involved. The driver of the vehicle, Anthony Wilson, was her boyfriend who had no license to drive. As the owner of the vehicle, Albritton was responsible for what was found. Albritton consented to the search. Albritton most certainly knew she was pleading guilty to a felony. She signed a waiver of indictment which read, "I am the defendant in the above felony information. My attorney has explained to me my right to be prosecuted by grand jury indictment, which I hereby waive, and I consent to the filing of the above felony information." And there is the incident report: You do not remember what nolu chan said in 2016. You misremember. As I noted in 2016: If she pleaded not guilty and waited for the confirmatory drug test result, there is no guarantee the 45-day offer would still be there. Albritton sued for damages in Federal district court in 2016. Her suit for damages was dismissed on the merits, with prejudice, on 28 March 2017. Albritton et al v. The City of Houston, Texas et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston), 4:16-cv-02662, Doc 31, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (28 March 2017) [Excerpt at 13-14] [Excerpt, ORDER at 19] ORDERED that Defendants City of Houston and David Helms's Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 10) , Defendants Harris County, Texas and Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lykos's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) (Document No. 13), Defendant Due Nguyen's Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 19), Defendants City of Houston, David Helms, and Due Nguyen's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 27), and Defendants Harris County, Texas and Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lykos's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 28) are GRANTED and Plaintiffs' claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED on the merits with prejudice. A Final Judgment will be entered separately.
Okay, great. I stand corrected. But then they didn't bother to notify Albritton until July 29 2014, about 3.5 years AFTER they discovered she was innocent, and almost 4 years after the ordeal began. www.nytimes.com/interacti...ent-Innocence-letter.html And if the account of an investigative journalist is correct, it was that journalist that was the first inform Albritton of the formal lab results, not the prosecutor's office. So all in all there is/was still a FUBAR situation within the state's legal system. This appears to be a reasonably factual rundown on all that happened which mentions not only Albritton but a few hundred others who took plea deals in cases where subsequent tests found no drugs were present from this one jurisdiction. trofire.com/2016/07/11/di...ar-drugs-false-positives/ By your own postings, Albritton was told that if she plead guilty, she would receive a much lighter sentence. That in spite of the fact that when people are asked by a judge about their state of mind in relation to pleading guilty, they are supposed to be doing so WITHOUT it being in exchange for anything whatsoever. So if in her case, if she affirmed that, then she flat out lied to the judge when she did so. And she lied to the judge because it was required to save herself from years in prison. And anything and everything she signed and/or confessed to in official legal documents was done done *under coercion*. Now you can pretend that there was no coercion there if you want and cite the court verdict, but that is simply living in denial. Just because the courts are obligated to pretend that the papers she signed were signed honestly without coercion doesn't mean there wasn't any coercion because everyone knows it's there. EVERYONE who pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence lies when they say they are doing so freely and NOT in exchange for something. It is all a total farce. I know it, prosecutors know it, those taking plea deals know it, and the judges know it too. But on paper it looks good so that's why it's required. You seem to be the only one that is in denial as you essentially treat the legal system as a priest would treat his religion. And I'm totally serious about that. I totally respect you for your desire for accuracy in all legal matters, but at the same time, I do criticize you for failing to recognize that the system, quite often, fails and does so in a manner that is not the fault of the people who are wrongly convicted EVEN IF they take a plea deal. This is a case of "the customer is always right" and the customers are the average people, like Albritton. And it failed Albritton along with hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people.
nolu to Pinguinite, #21 of July 28, 2016; Pinguinite plea bargain https://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47033&Disp=21#C21 From the 2016 thread: You don't understand that she was innocent. A first grader could grasp this concept. But it is somehow beyond your intellect. I understand perfectly well that at the time Albritton pleaded guilty, her chances of getting acquitted were about as good as yours when you absolutely jumped at a plea bargain. So stop the bullshit. Whether or not to take a plea deal must be judged at the time the offer is made, not under different circumstances that may later arise. The very late testing on the Albritton evidence did not and could not prove innocence. The absence of evidence is neither proof of innocence nor guilt. Even a court acquittal is not proof of innocence. You wrote series of self-serving, pie in the sky articles: (2) Strategy, Preparation ad Vales (Septeber 19, 2004) (3) The Trial (October 1, 2004) (4) The Trial Aftermath (Regrets?) (November 11, 2004) As you stated in episode 3, "A lot of things ran through my mind in that moment. ... * I am not guilty of these charges." And after your recitation of things that ran through your mind, came, "I looked at the judge and in what might be my most infamous moment, said 'I'll take it.'" Where did the system fail that time? You acted as your own lawyer. You made the decision. Did you fail the system as the defendant or as your own lawyer? You had a simple traffic stop for not having your headlights on. You were the self-professed man living Life Without a Number [LWAN]. Your LWAN crap led to a second charge of driving without a license which turned out to actually be an expired license. In addition, there was the refusal to provide registration on demand, obstruction of justice, and refusal to obey a reasonable/lawful order. To simplify it, you had a routine stop for not using headlights and amplified it with four more charges for being a pain in the ass. As for Life Without A Number [LWAN], in episode 4, after you got your mind right, you applied to a drivers license and gave the following account: Me: I don't have one. He pokes some keys on his computer and asks some more demographic information. Clerk: I'm showing that you have one. Did you know that? Me: Is your computer hooked up to the Social Security Administration? Clerk: Yes it is, and I'm showing you have an SSN. Now the application for a driver license in Pennsylvania obligated the applicant to permit PennDOT to inquire of the SSA on behalf of the applicant, but the Maryland application had no such preprinted authorization paragraph. Was this guy's tying into the SSA database to make inquiries of me without my permission a violation of federal law? Me: I don't have an SSN. It's against my religious beliefs. Clerk: Well, it's doesn't get printed on the driver license. His words were spoken as though he understood my sentiments better than I did. He then did something that stunned me. Without any further questions, he picked up his pen, went to the SSN box, crossed out my printed word 'None' and wrote in a nine digit number. This stunned me because what this guy from the Westminster office of Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administration did was modify a document signed true and correct under penalty of perjury. He doctored a sworn document. That has to be a crime, and a serious one. I've not looked it up, but what he did *must* be a crime. Now, what the hell and I going to do about this? To make a long story short, you saw the light and took the license. Apparently, Life Without A Number [LWAN] is making believe you do not have a Social Security number. So tell me, what made you, a professedly innocent man, plead guilty? Was it a failure in the system? What system prevents a person from pleading guilty? First thing that happens is prosecutors start dropping cases that are least important. They only prosecute the worst crimes. Petty stuff involving no victims, much like the woman in the above case, don't go to trial at all. Prosecutors see a single tiny questionable crumb and send her home. Police get the message as well, to only arrest and charge people who are truly a problem. Then the record high incarceration rate of the USA starts to drop. This works well in your dreamworld, especially in the world of mandatory mimimum sentences and in a Federal system without parole. It begins with a single step... one person refuses to consider any plea bargain... and he is joined by another... and another... and pretty soon it is a movement. Just think, you could have taken the first step. I had this debate with an idiot about 15 years ago regarding the military justice system. If all service members just refused Article 15 administrative punishment, and demanded Court-Martial, the system would fall apart. Somehow, the movement has never taken hold. It seems few want to go first as there will be draconian sentences. Paging Eddie Slovik. The record high incarceration will not drop while it remains a money making business. So you now feel they should have forced you to stand trial. When given the choice in real life, you grabbed a plea agreement at first offer, and you were your own lawyer. You did not even attempt to negotiate for a better deal — because you did not believe all your proclamations of innocence. You have told me that, as Albritton's attorney, you would have advised her to refuse the 21-day offer. Acting as your own advocate, representing yourself, when faced with far less jeopardy, you snatched up a deal as fast as you could. Albritton, faced with two years minimum, in prison, took a deal for 21 days in jail. Why is it a system failure when Albritton takes a deal in her self-interest, but it is not when you make a conscious and knowing decision to take a plea in far less serious circumstances of your own making? You fully understand that you are full of shit, but make believe anyway. Your absurd point has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. It has zero legal merit and you, of all people, know that. When you were offered a plea bargain, you jumped at it. You swore you were not coerced, it was your choice. You were not about to be kidnapped. I am of the opinion that these court appointed attorneys do NOT care about the many defendants they supposedly serve. Why would they? It's not like they are paying customers. These lawyers are probably a few years out of law school, bored to tears with the people they are told they have to represent, and certainly many or most of the ones they represent truly are guilty. Of course that would be the statistical truth. But it's also true that it's as statistical impossibility for them not to have innocent people commonly assigned to them. That's real life. That is the human element part of these court appointed attorneys that compromise the whole idea of having court appointed attorneys. So yes, based on what I've read of this case, the court appointed attorney failed to give adequate representation to this woman. On the other hand, is it his fault for not caring about his clients if he's simply has no vested reason to care about them? Maybe not. Albritton was told of her options, in English. Well, hot diggity damn. In your own case, you spoke English, but every time you opened your mouth you seemed to create another problem for yourself. You chose to represent yourself, so there was no problem of a legal counsel who did not have your best interest at heart. You communicated as you pleased and the system communicated directly to you. I was sent a copy of a contract that I could present to attorneies which provides the terms for being my 'assistance of counsel' and it seemed reasonable overall, but for reasons on which I was unclear, no attorney will sign it. Since it would be my obligation to find someone qualified to be my assistance, my strategy would be to provide the judge evidence that I was really, really trying to find 'assistance of counsel', but that 'none of the 150 attorneys I've found so far is willing to serve as assistance of counsel. There are still a couple thousand more I need to ask so I just need some more time'. Without my waiving that right, trial could not proceed, so it would be delayed indefinitely until they just got tired of it and removed it from the docket. That's what I was told, anyway. And you believe that bullshit??? You could at least pick up a dictionary and look up assistance of counsel. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, citations omitted. First, if they are to appear in a criminal case, they damn sure have to be lawyers or attorneys with a valid bar card. You spent too much time around felons who fleeced people and appeared in administrative cases. See U.S. v. Grismore, 546 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1976) . . . the procedure which will be followed in this case will be that either you represent yourself or you have counsel retained who is a member of the Bar of this Court, or you may proceed with your court appointed counsel. (R., Vol. I, p. 4.) Grismore chose to be represented by court appointed counsel who handled all arguments and the examination of all witnesses. The Constitution does not provide the right of representation by a lay person. "Counsel" as referred to in the Sixth Amendment does not include a lay person, rather "counsel" refers to a person authorized to the practice of law. United States v. Cooper, 493 F.2d 473 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 859, 95 S. Ct. 108, 42 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1974); Guajardo v. Luna, 432 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir. 1970); Harrison v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 245, 387 F.2d 203 (1967), reversed on other grounds, 392 U.S. 219, 88 S. Ct. 2008, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (1968); McKinzie v. Ellis, 287 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1961). [...] In United States v. Hines, 470 F.2d 225, 232 (3rd Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 968, 93 S. Ct. 1452, 35 L. Ed. 2d 703 (1973), the court held that, " . . . Effective assistance does not demand that every possible motion be filed, but only those having solid foundation." On this basis, we hold that Grismore's counsel was not compelled to argue that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. The test for incompetent counsel in this circuit is set forth in Ellis v. State of Oklahoma, 430 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1010, 91 S. Ct. 1260, 28 L. Ed. 2d 546 (1971):. . . that relief from a final conviction on the ground of incompetent or ineffective counsel will be granted only when the trial was a farce, or a mockery of justice, or was shocking to the conscience of the reviewing court, or the purported representation was only perfunctory, in bad faith, a sham, a pretense, or without adequate opportunity for conference and preparation. Goforth v. United States, 314 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1963). 430 F.2d, at 1356. The term you were too lazy to look up was standby counsel. And no, you do not have some constitutional right to have one appointed to you if you proceed pro se. If you dismiss your court appointed attorney and demand to proceed pro se, the court may permit you to proceed as your own attorney. If you desire a standby counsel, the court may agree or refuse. If the court agrees to provide one, it may be the appointed counsel you just dismissed, now serving as standby counsel. No counsel is required to make any motion which has no legal basis, such as most of your rubbish. And none of this will jam the wheels of the system for eternity. U.S. Supreme Court McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) At his state robbery trial, respondent was permitted to proceed pro se, but the trial court appointed standby counsel to assist him. Before and during the trial, respondent frequently changed his mind regarding the standby counsel's role, objecting to counsel's participation on some occasions but agreeing to it on other occasions. Following his conviction, respondent unsuccessfully moved for a new trial on the ground that his standby counsel had unfairly interfered with his presentation of his defense. After exhausting direct appellate and state habeas corpus review, respondent filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court, claiming that standby counsel's conduct deprived him of his right to present his own defense, as guaranteed by Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806. The District Court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent's Sixth Amendment right of self-representation was violated by the unsolicited participation of overzealous standby counsel. Held: Respondent's Sixth Amendment right to conduct his own defense was not violated, since it appears that he was allowed to make his own appearances as he saw fit, and that his standby counsel's unsolicited involvement was held within reasonable limits. Pp. 465 U. S. 173-187. (a) The Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment implies a right in the defendant to conduct his own defense, with assistance at what is his, not counsel's, trial. Here, the record reveals that respondent was accorded the rights of a pro se defendant to control the organization and conduct of his own defense, to make motions, to argue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at appropriate points in the trial. Pp. 465 U. S. 173-175. (b) The objectives of affirming a pro se defendant's dignity and autonomy and of allowing the presentation of what may be his best possible defense can both be achieved without categorically silencing standby counsel. In determining whether a defendant's Faretta rights have been respected, the primary focus must be on whether he had a fair chance to present his case in his own way. Such rights, however, do impose limits on the extent of standby counsel's unsolicited participation. First, the pro se defendant is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury, and, second, standby counsel's participation without the defendant's consent should not be allowed to destroy the jury's perception that the defendant is representing himself. Pp. 465 U. S. 176-179. (c) The appearance of a pro se defendant's self-representation will not be undermined by standby counsel's participation outside the jury's presence. In this case, most of the incidents of which respondent complains occurred when the jury was not in the courtroom, and, while some of those incidents were regrettable, counsel's participation fully satisfied the first limitation noted above. Respondent was given ample opportunity to present his own position to the court on every matter discussed, and all conflicts between respondent and counsel were resolved in respondent's favor. Pp. 465 U. S. 179-181. (d) It is when standby counsel participate in the jury's presence that a defendant may legitimately claim that excessive involvement by counsel will destroy the appearance that the defendant is acting pro se. Nevertheless, a categorical bar on counsel's participation is unnecessary. Here, where respondent's pro se efforts were undermined primarily by his own changes of mind regarding counsel's role, it is very difficult to determine how much of counsel's participation was, in fact, contrary to respondent's desires. If a defendant is given the opportunity and elects to have counsel appear before the court or a jury, his complaints concerning counsel's subsequent unsolicited participation lose much of their force. Once a pro se defendant invites or agrees to any substantial participation by counsel, subsequent appearances by counsel must be presumed to be with the defendant's acquiescence, at least until the defendant expressly and unambiguously renews his request that standby counsel be silenced. Pp. 465 U. S. 181-183. (e) A defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not violated when a trial judge appoints standby counsel -- even over the defendant's objection -- to relieve the judge of the need to explain and enforce basic rules of courtroom protocol or to assist the defendant in overcoming routine obstacles that stand in the way of his achievement of his own clearly indicated goals. At respondent's trial, a significant part of standby counsel's participation involved such basic procedures, and none interfered with respondent's control over his defense or undermined his appearance before the jury in the status of a pro se defendant. Pp. 465 U. S. 183-185. (f) Aside from standby counsel's participation that was either approved by respondent or attendant to routine clerical or procedural matters, counsel's unsolicited comments in front of the jury were not substantial or frequent enough to have seriously undermined respondent's appearance before the jury in the status of representing himself. Pp. 465 U. S. 185-187. 681 F.2d 266, reversed. Anne Bowen POULIN, The Role of Standby Counsel in Criminal Cases, In the Twilight Zone of the Criminal Justice System, N.Y.U. Law Review, June 2000, pp. 676-736, at 677-78 and 683-85, extensive footnotes omitted. [...] In short, the constitutional guidance concerning standby counsel is limited. The pro se defendant cannot demand the assistance of standby counsel. A court may appoint standby counsel but is not required to. Appointed standby counsel may actively assist the pro se defendant but cannot interfere with the defendant's control of the case or the defendant's appearance of control. This bare standard reveals the importance of establishing more defined guidelines for the appointment of standby counsel and the obligations of the designated attorney. PROBLEMS IN CURRENT PRACTICE Judicial decisions addressing pro se defendants' complaints reveal troubling patterns in the appointment of standby counsel that heighten the importance of better defining standby counsel's role. The cases depict problems in how defendants choose to represent themselves and how courts assign standby counsel. The decision whether to appoint standby counsel for a pro se defendant generally falls within the trial court's discretion, although appointment is considered the better practice. Nevertheless, many courts are ambivalent about whether a defendant who waives assistance of counsel should receive the benefit of standby counsel. Most decisions hold that a trial court may properly refuse to appoint standby counsel, and some courts are actually hostile to defendants' requests for assistance. For example, one court argued that "[t]he appointment of standby counsel frequently creates more problems than it solves and often is viewed by defendants as an important factor in making the decision to proceed pro se."' In Brookner v. Superior Court, a California appellate court suggested that the defendant be given the stark choice of self-representation (with no standby counsel) or assistance of counsel: "A self-representing defendant should be flying solo without the comforting knowledge that if turbulence shakes his confidence, a superbly qualified pilot is sitting in the front row of first class." Before you tell everyone how the law works, you may want to make a minimal effort to learn how the law works. From the positive point of view, when you represented yourself and you faced criminal charges of which you had every probability of being convicted, although you wrote patriotically of your professed innocence, you sensibly advised yourself to take a plea agreement, and you took your sensible, competent advice to plead guilty.
There are no replies to Comment # 55. End Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDeputy Steven O'Leary claimed to have conducted a field drug test on the powder, and said it tested positive for heroin.
#40. To: Hank Rearden (#35)
Perform that same test in court, under oath, and if it doesn't come up positive, give the "hero" deputy's house to his victim.
#42. To: misterwhite (#40)
Retest it in a lab and if the original test was a false positive, drop the charge. I believe that's the procedure.
#50. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#42)
Retest it in a lab and if the original test was a false positive, drop the charge. I believe that's the procedure.
Only it takes 42 days, or sometimes, 5 years for them to get around to doing that. One woman was basically extorted into taking a plea deal over a white crumb in her car which ruined her career with a felony conviction, and it took that long for the lab to do the real test and determine it was not what the field test said it was.
Incident Report:
EVIDENCE:
OFFICER HELMS FOUND THE CRACK ROCK ON THE PASSENGER FRONT SEAT FLOOR BOARD AND TOOK CUSTODY OF THE EVIDENCE. I FOUND THE UNKNOWN POWER (sic) IN THE CENTER CONSUL (sic) AND THE USED NEEDLE HIDDEN IN BETWEEN THE LINING OF THE ROOF ON THE DRIVERS SIDE. OFFICER HELMS The defendant's profession of innocence plays no role in explaining the legal alternatives and explaining an offered plea bargain. In this case, he [the appointed lawyer] should have explained that she could take 45 days or plead not guilty and possibly do several years, depending on the confirmatory drug test. Her professions that the drugs belonged to the boyfriend speak to her expectation that the presumptive drug test would be confirmed. It was her car. She got arrested because the evidence was found in her car. If the evidence were to be confirmed, she could/would be convicted.
Albritton premises the County's liability on the District Attorney's Office's use of unreliable evidence as part of its actual prosecution and conviction of Albritton, its lack of appropriate policies related thereto, and its offer of a plea bargain to Albritton. These allegations involve "classic law enforcement and investigative functions" carried out by the District Attorney's Office in its prosecutorial capacity as an agent of the state. Id. at 855. Accordingly, Albritton's claims against the County are subject to dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
#51. To: nolu chan (#50)
It did not take 5 years, or even 1 year, to test the sample. Albritton was arrested August 3, 2010, booked on August 4, 2010 at 3:37 a.m., and was convicted upon her plea of guilty on August 5, 2010. Following a guilty plea, confirmatory lab testing loses urgency. The lab test was performed on February 28, 2011.
#55. To: Pinguinite (#51)
#21. To: Pinguinite (#20)
Ms. Albritton joined the cattle call and pleaded guilty. She entertained no evidence faith that she would be found innocent. They dangled 45-days at her and she jumped at it. That was not a failure of the system, as you like to see it. That is the system.
(1) Traffic Stop, Arrest, May 17, 2004 (September 14, 2004)
Clerk: What's your social security number?
As I've stated many times but which have your head too stuck in legal morass to understand is that the purpose of the legal system is to punish the guilty without harming the innocent. Apparently you just do not get that, can not understand that very simple, basic principle.
Now, what happens when you make the court system prosecute all cases and do away with plea bargaining, given that the court systems are already so overwhelmed with cases? Budgets are tight now so....
You don't understand that she agreed to the plea under duress and under kidnapping conditions.
Number 2) The whole point of having legal council is to have an advocate that understands the legal system and will do there best to act and advise in the best interest of the accused. It does not appear that the 2nd part of this was exercised by the attorney, and from your responses, it seems you don't even agree that this 2nd purpose exists. As I stated, if all this woman needed was a means of communicating with the prosecuting attorney about her options, she only needed to speak the same language.
Another source who has an excellent reputation for really putting a cog in the gears suggested that I demand my right to 'assistance of counsel' in court. That's not a lawyer. That's not an attorney. That's not 'counsel'. That's 'assistance of counsel', which is the actual wording of our rights in the 6th Amendment. Assistance is different from 'counsel' in that with 'assistance', you are not represented. You manage your own case, but demand the assistance of one educated in protecting your constitutionally protected rights and court procedure with whom you may confer as needed. With any charge that might generate jail time, if you do not appear with an attorney, judges will ask you if you want to waive your right to an attorney. Standard court rules in jailable offenses is that trial cannot proceed until either you have an attorney or you waive the right to an attorney, or in this case, 'assistance of counsel'. This should, in theory at least, jam the wheels of the courts ability to proceed because no attorney will ever sign an agreement to serve in that capacity.
Assistance of counsel. Sixth Amendment to Federal Constitution, guaranteeing accused i criminal prosecutions "assistance of counsel" for his defense, means effective assistance, as distinguished from bad faith, sham, mere pretense or want of opportunity for conferences and preparation.
Grismore contends that he was denied his right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because he was not allowed to have the person he requested represent him. Grismore requested the court to allow Jerome Daly to represent him. Mr. Daly is not a member of any Bar Association, having been disbarred by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In re Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971). The court denied Grismore's request:
Syllabus
When a defendant exercises the right to proceed pro se, she imposes a greater burden on the trial court and the justice system to ensure a fair and efficient trial. Pro se representation threatens to create a disorderly and unfair trial because the defendant is both unversed in courtroom etiquette and uneducated in the law. Courts often provide standby counsel to alleviate the burden of presiding over the trial of a pro se criminal defendant and possibly to avert an unfair trial.' On the other hand, some courts regard pro se defendants as clever manipulators of the justice system. Judges may perceive defendants' requests for substitution of counsel as dilatory tactics and then respond by presenting defendants the choice of proceeding with an unsatisfactory attorney or representing themselves with appointed standby counsel.
Replies to Comment # 55.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]