Legal glitch halts pot trial [the defendant never entered a plea]

Sacramento Bee ^ | June 28, 2002 | Denny Walsh

[Cultural Jihad]

The judge in the case learns that the defendant never entered a plea.

The trouble-plagued marijuana trial of Bryan James Epis may have hit an insurmountable obstacle Thursday -- the defendant has never entered a plea.

The charges on which Epis is being tried are contained in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury on Jan. 30, but there was no arraignment.

[Cultural Jihad]

BTTT

[Texaggie79]

Justice by default....... mmmmmmm mmm good

[maxwell]

Dave's not here, man...

[justshutupandtakeit]

While I think it is stupid to prosecute weed growers or smokers. This seems like an idiotic reason to stop a trial.

Why would any defendent in any trial enter a plea if the indictment is thrown out when they don't? How much more idiotic are these judges going to get? Is there any limit?

[connectthedots]

It appears to me that the prosecutor has a big problem. What I am not quite sure of is the double jeopardy issue; and maybe you can answer a question. I think I have read somewhere that once the jury is impanelled, the defendant is then on trial and that a dismissal for lack of a proper charging document and arraignment would preclude a second trial. What is your opinion?

[goldstategop]

The defendant should have been allowed to enter a plea, but unless he pleads guilty he really hasn't given up any of his rights. Its still presumed as a matter of law he's not guilty unless he made statements to the contrary. The judge should have given an instruction to the jury to the effect the defendant entered a not guilty plea in lieu of arraignment and allowed the trial to continue. It was after all a paperwork glitch, not a constitutional error. Hardly worth cancelling a trial in midstream for and starting over again.