Posted on 06/18/2006 11:00:29 PM PDT by kenth
A Cuyahoga County judge threw out the charge against a man accused of raping a girl six years ago when the prosecutor in the case was 45 minutes late to trial.
Prosecutors have filed an appeal and said, if necessary, they will refile the charge against Norman Allen Craig, 22, of North Ridgeville.
The mother of the now 16-year-old Rocky River girl said her daughter feels victimized by the judge’s decision.
Common Pleas Judge Eileen Gallagher dismissed the case when Assistant County Prosecutor Mark Schneider had not shown up by 1:45 p.m. Monday, after she told both sides to be in court at 1 p.m.
Schneider was in his office preparing an appeal seeking to prevent the judge from continuing with the trial.
Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems.
“Nobody should be rendering opinions from the bench before trial,” Schneider said. “A child victim who’s being put through the wringer deserves a fair shake at trial.”
Gallagher said her decision to throw out the charge had nothing to do with the girl’s credibility.
“It was all about the unprofessional actions of a prosecutor,” she said. “You don’t show up — too bad. Don’t treat me like a punk and not show up in court without giving us the courtesy of notifying us where you are.”
County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher’s office, and she should have been aware of Schneider’s pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case.
A great legal mind at work.
Why are you yelling at me? I think I said that the response should have been aimed at the prosecutor.
The defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial. That's about the only connection I can think of to dismissing the case.
Do you always yell at people who raise questions? Is that the new Republican way?
Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems.
“Nobody should be rendering opinions from the bench before trial,” Schneider said.
BARF.
.
HERE A JUDGE LET
HER OWN
PETTY EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS--
NO, WE HAVEN'T.
The "judge" threw out the charge.
You might have missed my intent. It was not to dismiss wrong doing on the part of government slugs but to hold the actual slug more accountable rather than punish the taxpayer by letting the accused avoid a fair trial. Defense lawyers define a fair trial as one where the accused gets off. A right to a fair trial has been perverted into a right to use loopholes to get a get out of jail free card.
If, for example, a search was improper yet highly damning evidence was found, we currently exclude the evidence and issue a get out of jail free card instead of including the evidence and issuing a stiff penalty to those who committed the violation of the 4th Amendment.
The legal system is no longer about justice but about keeping lawyers in business.
I am currently in a 3 way lawyer milking fest because of a bad General contractor, a crappy Subcontractor and I have to pay a scum bag lawyer just to get the job done as contracted. Gee the bastard lawyers push for contracts then charge the innocent party to enforce them.
Agreed, the lawyer should be immediately disbarred.
"I may be a voice crying out in the wilderness, but I have to point out that judges let lawyers run rampant in the courtrooms and we bitch about it here often. Here a judge doesn't let a lawyer control the proceedings--and there is no excuse from the lawyer as to why they didn't show, mind you--and everyone's on the judge like it's some sort of awful chore to REFILE a dismissed case.
As long as it's not dismissed with prejudice, it's no big deal, and it'll probably end up in another courtroom instead of in front of the p'oed judge, which solves another problem, too."
100% accurate. Good post and points.
"Then this is just a he said/she said deal. No way of proving what, if anything ever happened. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt, and so no way to get a conviction unless there is some other evidence."
Not necessarily true. While getting a conviction on a he said/she said rape case is tough, it's not impossible. All boils down to credibility on the stand...
Yep. If we knew that he was the per, I'd agree. But we don't. That's why we have trials. And even then we don't know for sure.
she could have given the prosecuter a hefty fine. but to take it out on the victim?
Sounds like you are fixated on the prosecutor---just as the judge was.
If it upsets you, you have my permission to insert the word "alleged", although this case has nothing to do with the Duke case.
That's why I was guessing mother and daughter. There is also some facial resemblance.
all lawyers should be disbarred
Thats what everybody says until they need one.
Same with those who badmouth cops, and they always pick up the phone and call 911.
I agree. The question I have is...why didn't the DA's office send another assistant to the Court to advise of the issue. Why just not show up? That is stupid and asking for sanctions or a dismissal. When I was the DA, our District Judge had a rule, he would give you 5 minutes after the appointed time, and if you didn't show up, he would dismiss the matter that was before him. If it was just a motion hearing, then that motion was dismissed. If it was the trial, then the case was dismissed. So, you were either there, or you were calling in with a pretty huge reason why you couldn't be there. This incident was just plain stupid and I don't fault the judge one bit. In fact, I'm astounded she waited 45 minutes.
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.