Posted on 08/27/2016 6:04:00 AM PDT by Elderberry
B
Criminal cases have precedent over civil
Gee, if they were falsely arrested, there is no criminal case.
Duh.
Fishing expedition cancelled until further notice.
In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated:
Length of delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial." - Clearly violated.
Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations. - Clearly violated.
Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed. - The filing of the Civil cases is both de facto and de jure statement against the delay. - Clearly Violated.
Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused. - Clearly violated in that the ruling itself is "res ipse loquitur."
~Quod Erat Demonstrandum~
At no point in history has any government ever wanted its people to be defenseless for any good reason ~ nully's son
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping! - JBT ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
Lol. You cited case where the courts found he had not been deprived of his right to a speedy trial.
Hmmmm
Not in the Bill Ayers case. Civil rights were determined to take precedence over criminal terrorist and treason charges.
Guilty as sin, free as a bird.
“Clear” - Rallying cry of the police state.
And that has exactly WHAT? to do with this?
The outcome of that case - a completely different one - has absolutely noting to do with the fact that the tests cited are completely applicable, and have clearly *NOT* been satisfied here.
The accused have an excellent cause to bring suit on Sixth Amendment grounds as well as violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Your objection based on the merits of the case that generated these standards is an argument worthy of the likes of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. It has been plainly shown that Case Law and Precedent are on the side of the accused here.
You are grasping at straws in a manner which suggests a Statist mentality.
I don’t recall bill being arrested nor recall a mlawsuit against the government
A fine example of your taxpayer dollars at work.
The corruption runs deep.
It is past time to get rid of that POS Reyna and his ilk.
“And that has exactly WHAT? to do with this? “
EXACTLY NOTHING! You cited a case about speedy criminal trials which has NOTHING to do about civil trials.
*You* were the one who posted this:
To: TexasGator
Criminal cases have precedent over civil
3 posted on 8/27/2016, 8:10:41 AM by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
You said that upthread because the thread is about the manner in which the criminal trials are being delayed in order to protect errant prosecutors and law enforcement from civil suits.
My original post was about how the delay of the criminal trials is clearly in violation of the "speedy trial" clause of the Sixth Amendment and the resultant lack of action in the civil cases is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. (Denial of due process.)
Did you think that by waiting a day to reply we'd all forget what the point of this was?
“My original post was about how the delay of the criminal trials is clearly in violation of the “speedy trial” clause of the Sixth Amendment and the resultant lack of action in the civil cases is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. (Denial of due process.) Did you think that by waiting a day to reply we’d all forget what the point of this was? “
Uh, the article topic is about civil vs criminal trials to which I made my comment and you reply to my comment was about speedy criminal trials which had nothing to do with my post.
Do you think that by adding your confusion that we’d all forget that you made a non-relevant post to me?
"Criminal cases have precedent over civil"
And by the way it's "precedence."
A "precedent" is a prior ruling that sets a standard.
"Precedence" is the order of priority.
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.