From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Prosecuting Attorneys
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:15:29 CDT

In article 9779@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.142716.16774@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>>Regular guy has questions:
>
>>  There are a lot of laws on the books and I presume there is a lot of law
>>breaking. 
>
>>How does the district attorney decide which cases to bring before the court?
>>How does politics play into the descision whether to file a case? State vs.
>> john doe?
>
>Theoretically if a crime is committed, it would be investigated by a city
>police department or by a county sheriff.  After someone is arrested the
>prosecutor would go to court for an arraignment (to determine if a crime
>had been committed). 
 
 After someone is arrested or 'served papers', correct? These papers 
require that person to "appear" in court or have lawyer represent
them in court in order to enter a plea? 
Why would anyone need an attorney for this (misdemeaner)? 
If a judge admonishes or makes statements in the courtroom directed at
the defendent such that it implicates that individual guilt prior to
or after their plea, is the judge in violation of the law? 

Example:  

 State vs. Wally:  Wally, it has been allegded that you were seen 
stealing a pack of gum from J's Cafe. 
 
Judge: How do you plead.

Defendent: Not guilty.

Judge: I don't want to hear you go in J's Cafe again, do you hear me?



> After enough evidence is collected the prosecutor
>would take the case to court if they felt the evidence justified it.  The
>most likely reason to not proceed would be if those collecting the evidence
>made an error which was not legally defensible or otherwise determined that
>the case wasn't worth prosecuting.

Can a defendent receive the 'evidence' or see the evidence "justifying"
the prosecuters case? 
>
>The prosecutor also might be short of help and would allow the "criminal" to
>plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid the time, effort and expense of
>pursuing the case in court. 

This is what I call, "JUSTICE ROBBERY".  My theory is to challenge the
prosecuter to fork over the so-called evidence or the case should be
thrown out. Pleading to a lesser offense frees up courts to prosecute
and harass as many of the public as possible. Writing bad laws is 
THE #1 problem. The prosecuter wins no matter what. An innocent person
is going to pay for an attorney to 'defend' himself. Whether the 
person is guilty or not makes no difference. 

 In determining which cases come under this
>category, obviously politics is a factor.  Certain cases also might be more
>easily prosecuted if the prosecutor knows the judge is more likely to look
>favorably at the cases (the judges are elected also).

I can name several ambiguous laws that lean heavily in the area of 
prosecuter discretion and popularity. In other words, a County Prosecuter
pushes certain laws that are politically correct in order gain tremendous
political power. Some of these laws are doing more harm than good. But
unquestionably, the lawyers are getting rich. 

>
>One issue that has often been raised is the racial bias of the community
>in determining legal action.  For example, if a prominant member of the
>community is attacked (and or killed) by a minority, it is much more likely
>that the person will be prosecuted than if the victim is a "lesser" member
>of society.
>

Family law and domestic abuse laws have unsurped racial bias as the new legal discrimination.

Any man willing to 'fight' for custody can solve the problem instantaneously.
Burn himself, call 911 and have the estranged wife arrested. Now he
has a 20% chance of winning custody instead 0 chances. Domestic abuse
and protection orders requires little or no evidence. 


Xref: sparky misc.legal:18488 fl.general:116 talk.politics.drugs:6699 alt.activism:17356