Guilty as charged.

Oh I see. When his son testifies in court, under oath, that's "only" his statement. But Uncle Nathan's hearsay reports, out in the street, are to be believed, no questions asked!

What's more, it's not only his statement. As per my earlier post, the mother and daughter had also told investigators about the threat. For whatever reason, Reffitt's defense team decided not to call either the daughter or mother to the stand.

And also per my earlier post, it was the son who reported his father, so I have no idea why you're telling me those details. Not news to me.

 

And you really thing they don't want out of the dungeon?

 

My response to visit the conspiracy theory section was in response to your conspiracy-theory style claim that a motion to dismiss would be denied to a republican.

So, what are you talking about now? That they haven't already tried a motion to dismiss for failure to provide a speedy trial?

If so, then the answer would be that they haven't tried it because such a failure has not, as yet, occurred. And may in fact never occur.

 

it's their choice, they may be hoping with time they get a better plea deal or any number of reasons

maybe they want to do their time in jail vs prison, as they will get time served

 

So in other words you're claiming people can be kept in jail indefinitely for relatively minor offenses.

 

What's your problem? I'm not "claiming" anything. There being some discussion of the right to a speedy trial, I am making a simple statement of fact re the legal process with no regard to any particular defendants or situations. Whats more, it's nothing new.

And, as should be clear from the facts, no one can be held in jail indefinitely. That's the whole point of the right to a speedy trial - to ensure that is not the case.

 

Your dreaming.

 

Thats just dumb

 

just stating the reality of why some defendants prefer not to invoke their rights

just like some speak to police, even tough they have the right to remain silent

 

you're the one that said it, you can call it whatever you want, but thank you

I even gave a link to you saying it.... lol

 

It isn't a valid comparison. There is no equivalency between BLM riots which are inspired by police brutality and 1/6 attackers who are inspired by the President of the United States, so any comparison is NOT valid.

Not valid whatsoever.

 

That is despicable.

 

What FreshAir said was true. The right of a speedy trial is guananteed by the Constitution, but how you define "speedy" is the question here. Defense attorneys do not want to go unprepared into a trial. That is very risky and why they don't always ask. Considering our judicial system is an adversarial system, the Judge manages the expectations of both and with discovery and exculpatory evidence procedures, Defense attorney are wise to make sure they have all the preperation done first before the trial begins. However, in most cases, the defense waives that right, which is usually a pretrial motion brought by either the Defense or Prosecution and generally is agreed to. If you want a speedy trial, it is risky and you may not see the results as you saw in the OJ Simpson case in LA. Defense did their job, prosecution did not. But that trial is the exception, not the rule in most cases.

 

All Federal Buildings state that you cannot, generally, bring a firearm, a knife, and other "dangerous" weapons into the building. The only exception is if you are a duly appointed law enforcement officer. If that is the case, you present your badge and creditentials, sign in, and be on your merry way. At the capital is no exception. In fact, the first time I experienced this was my first tour of the WH in 1978 where my mother had her scissors confiscated by the Secret Service.

 

Then you have the wrong idea of what a speedy trial is. It has nothing to do with the time to get to trial.
The protection afforded by the speedy trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been accused in the course of that prosecution.

 

Interesting thing about Capone was that he was found guilty of tax evasion and similar crimes, but not murder, extortion, etc. And they had to change juries the day the trial started in order to get the three convictins they did get.

 

Actually it does, but there are factors involved and the Constitution does not define what Speedy truly means. That is why the pretrial motion is almost automatic in any criminal felony trial, especially something like murder or other similar serious felonies. However, there are timelimits to be indicted. Being indicted quickly meets that Constitutional standard, not the actual trial to determine whether you are found guilty or not guilty by a jury of your peers, if you choose to have a jury trial.

 

Yet there people who have been held without bond for more than a year now without bail

not even remotely comparable.

 

Tangential rant, off point, lazy post, too short, as such, a non argument. Non sequitur, Not a counter argument, You're not worthy of a response, the incredible fact twisting you portray just isn't worth my time, no reply needed.

 

Which has nothing to do with the speedy trial guarantee.

 

And Capone convictions have what to do with Trump again?

 

Neither did Trump.

 

Rumble and Gateway Peckerwood? Goebbels applauds...

 

I was not the one who brought up Capone to begin with. Just giving a factoid about the end result of the Capone charges and conviction.

 

I would say you and Goebbels are one... looks like he is doing what you are doing everyday.

The articles are real people talking and not the unnamed anonymous sources only CNN offers as CNN gives you their opinion of what the unnamed anonymous sources say.... then you use their opinion as your talking point.