Posted on 12/16/2015 1:41:19 PM PST by don-o
None of these is a big issue, because the issue is your lack of understanding, but you didn't (and maybe still don't) see that your ...
Show me where I said anything about them not deserving due process?is satisfied by ...
maybe if you want to be treated as an individual, you shouldn't join a criminal gang and then engage in mass violence with them?
... that organized crime statutes don't dispense with the requirement for individualized accusations, and that your "You would rather have them rush to judgment than do the job properly?" appears to be based on your belief that the GJ didn't rush.
-- ... the fundamentals of the case are pretty straight forward, after all. --
There is sharp disagreement on which side of criminal law and procedure those fundamentals fall. You think the prosecutor has produced proper charges, supported by evidence, and the defense thinks the charges are neither properly expressed nor supported by evidence.
“... that organized crime statutes don’t dispense with the requirement for individualized accusations”
No, and there have been individual accusations. They’ve been indicted individually, there is no indictment for “the Bandidos”, or “the Cossacks”.
You’re trying to conflate the uniformity of the charges, which is simply a product of the nature of the case, being an organized crime case, with a lack of due process, but the charge is ludicrous.
“nd that your “You would rather have them rush to judgment than do the job properly?” appears to be based on your belief that the GJ didn’t rush.”
Hmm, when the GJ acts quickly, you criticize them. When they ask for more time, you criticize them. Seems like you have already decided to criticize them, no matter what they end up doing.
“the defense thinks the charges are neither properly expressed nor supported by evidence”
Of course, that’s the defense attorney’s job, even when they have clients that are dumb enough to commit felonies in broad daylight in front of the police and video cameras, and who are also dumb enough to broadcast their criminal gang affiliations openly by sewing them on their clothes. It’s hard to overcome that kind of stupidity by a criminal, but hey, the attorney is legally obligated to try.
Sure, but other than the name on the indictment, the indictments are identical. They all killed or participated in killing, and/or they all caused bodily injury. This is roughly by "law of the parties." Other than individualizing the names and tangentially (not expressly) invoking law of the parties, the indictments, like the affidavit in support of arrest, makes no claim about what any particular individual did, other than be there, and be a member of some recognizable group.
-- Hmm, when the GJ acts quickly, you criticize them. When they ask for more time, you criticize them. Seems like you have already decided to criticize them, no matter what they end up doing. --
I just said they could do the same thing today that they did on November 17th. Issue a set of cookie-cutter indictments. You imply that would be a rush to judgment.
-- ... when they have clients that are dumb enough to commit felonies in broad daylight in front of the police and video cameras, and who are also dumb enough to broadcast their criminal gang affiliations openly by sewing them on their clothes. --
So, you are confident there will be 106 or more convictions.
“Sure, but other than the name on the indictment, the indictments are identical. They all killed or participated in killing, and/or they all caused bodily injury. This is roughly by “law of the parties.””
So, as I said, your real complaint is with the nature of organized crime statutes themselves, rather than their application in this case. They’re all being charged with the same offenses because the organized crime statutes declare them all responsible for the criminal activity of the criminal group they support.
In fact, this Waco case is a relatively limited application of organized crime statutes, because they didn’t even indict every member of the organization, as has been done in previous cases. Here, they only indicted those members who were present at the scene of the crime. That additional distinction is not required by the statutes, but the prosecution chose to narrow the case in that way anyways, which flies in the face of the reckless claims that this prosecution is indiscriminate.
“So, you are confident there will be 106 or more convictions.”
There’s no telling what a jury will do, but I’m confident the prosecution will be able to present a good case and there won’t be a wave of cases being tossed out like people seem to think.
That your characterization, which reflects a misunderstanding of the law. Law in general (due process concerns include a requirement to apprise the accused of certain particulars), as well as the organized crime statutes.
-- ... because they didn't even indict every member of the organization, as has been done in previous cases. --
Can you cite even one case where every member of the organization was indicted?
Yeah, I didn't think so. Thanks for what you post on these Cboldt, I following along here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.