The pendulum has swung too far on these domestic violence cases. So many are such bullsh*t cases. Often both parties are equally at fault and only the men are charged. Often there really was no battery to speak of but the women are being spiteful. When they calm down and change their minds they are not able to withdraw the charges because the laws are set up now such that it is extremely difficult for the prosecutors to drop these cases.
I don't know what you are talking about regarding probable cause hearings though. In our state we do not have grand juries nor are preliminary hearings required where the court determines if there is enough evidence to proceed. People can't even compel the court to have such a hearing unless they are incarcerated and I can't recall ever hearing a judge allow a defendant to speak in one of those. About the closest I can get to something like that is a bond reduction hearing where part of my argument for reducing the bond is that there is little likelihood that the state will get a conviction in the end. We get to see the prosecutors hand a little in those hearings but often the judge will shut us down before we get far and the only way the charges get dismissed in a hearing like this is if the prosecutor suddenly changes his mind. We can also do motions to dismiss but for the most part cases are only dismissed when they are improper as a matter of law. If there are factual issues to be determined those are for the jury (or judge in a bench trial) to decide so the judge doesn't want to hear them before the trial.
I would advise anyone who read connectthedots post to exercise care before following his example because in my state he probably would have ended up making the judge mad and he probably would have gone to jail.
I don't know what you are talking about regarding probable cause hearings though. In our state we do not have grand juries nor are preliminary hearings required where the court determines if there is enough evidence to proceed. People can't even compel the court to have such a hearing unless they are incarcerated and I can't recall ever hearing a judge allow a defendant to speak in one of those. I was arrested, unlawfully I might add. That will soon be the subject of a 1983 complaint in federal court. In the state of Washington, the court rules require a probably cause hearing within two days if someone is arrested on a citation or without a warrant of arrest. The rule does not state that the defendant is entitled to it only if he remains incarcerated. The law also requires a judicial determination of probable cause prior to the judge asking the defendant to enter a plea. In the state of Washington, the defendant can question witnesses in such a hearing.
I would advise anyone who read connectthedots post to exercise care before following his example because in my state he probably would have ended up making the judge mad and he probably would have gone to jail.
That is good advice in almost all cases. In my case, they wouldn't dare charge me with contempt because they know that is exactly what I would want them to do. Long story, but they do not want to risk me questioning judges and prosecutors under oath in front of a jury.
When you are standing in front of a judge in a full courtroom, cite the federal and state constitutions, and their own court rules; and a fairly good knowledge of the rules of construction, it isn't a pretty cite to see the judge and prosecutor exchanging 'what do we do now' looks at each other.
By the time I got finished with them, they couldn't get me out of the courtroom fast enough.