No I’m not. But I have read utah court of appeals and Utah supreme court opinions for 20 years. if evidence is not turned over to the defence, and they find out about it, they can appeal. Courts many times throw out the convictions because of the constitutional guarantee to confront the accuser (the evidence is considered an accuser in a court case).
Mueller can try and get them brought in, and get a bail, you’d have to read up on whatever law they are accused of violation and what the statutory punishment is. Odds are they won’t have to put up much bail money, and they probably would get to keep their passports (since they are not US issues) to continue their life’s, run their businesses and such. Remember constitution requires a REASONABLE bail.
Yes they should. They can wave the right to appear and have council appear for them however (or at least they can in Utah courts under certain conditions).
Their is a better than 50% chance they are. BUT the problem is, how do you ignore the constitution?
I don’t think judge’s like it when the defendants are trying to abuse the Constitution.
The court has no obligation to accept the defendant’s requirement to appear for the arraignment.
Here’s the federal law regarding a speedy trial. It seems to me if they want a speedy trial, they need to show up to court.
In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.
Judge shouldn’t take that into consideration. The judge should look at the plain language of the constituion. Are they constitutional guaranteed a speedy trial. The answer is yes. Delay by the prosocution denied.
Do you mean not appear? Depends on how the law, or rules of the court are written. If allowed by law or rules, why do you want them not to apply to only certain people?
Again yes they should show up. But no where in that does it say the speedy trial should be delayed if we think they won’t show up. I’m not seeing that in the law. I’m seeing the law saying if the defendant wants a speedy trial, 70 days from the request. so by my figuring, that occured in March (about the 6th, I’d have to look up the exact date again. So the trial SHOULD start end of May, first of June time frame.
Now in the story I read, Mueller told the court they have 14 tarrabies of soviet languate social media as evidence. I sure as hell hope Mueller has the relevent parts translated to english. I’m about 95% sure the judge won’t speak/read russian, nor with a jury. Once it’s translated by Mueller it MUST be turned over to the defence as evidence to be presented (gives the defense time to make sure that it was translated correctly and such). If they show up day of and start introducing english translations that the defence doesn’t have, the defence will move to dissalow the evidence and the judge will probably do so as it wasn’t turned over in discovery.
I’m pretty sure you’re misreading the law. Again, the important part only.
the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.
It’s 70 days after the defendant appears before a judicial officer of the court, not 70 days after some “request” is made. Can you provide a quote to the contrary?
Legal representation is representation of the defendant. Defendant doesn’t have to appear at all hearings.
Their attorneys filed for speedy trial, Mueller objected, court hearing was held. The attorney from Muellers office appeard and the attorney for the defendant appeared. That’s typically how it works.
Couple of court hearings on a guy I was trying to get thrown in prison his attorney was the only one in the courtroom.
I don’t see anything in the law that says 70 days after the defendant’s attorney is in court. It clearly says 70 days after the defendant appears before the court. Shouldn’t the judge look at the plain language of the law?
You can disagree, but the defendant has representation, and that representation appeared in the court.
That’s a lot different than saying the law itself shouldn’t apply because they won’t show up to the trail in 70 day. Or that the constitutional protectoin of a speedy trial shouldn’t apply.
