Criminal case witness sues city over wrongful jail

[Swimmy]

Criminal case witness sues city over wrongful jailing
Because the disgrace has no clue how to conduct any investigative reporting, I posted a link to the actual Complaint that she filed in federal court.

Unless the witness was under a subpoena, it's my understanding that the court cannot imprison a witness. That's why you put them under subpoena.

I can't believe this was allowed. I hope a grievance against the Judge has been filed too. The judge should have known better.

[dgriffin]

My only law experience is Law and Order, but can't they detain you as a material witness or something like that? Or is that only in special cases.

[dgriffin]

OK, I struggled through the complaint. The ADA was indeed trying to hold her as a material witness. She says unnecessarily. Swimmy, why did Trainor think she wouldn't show? Also, what would have happened had she not, that could not be rectified?

[thelma]

Dave - from what I understand, the ADA was bringing charges against her former boyfriend for criminalo contempt for disobeying the terms of an Order of Protection the Court had issued due to Domestic Violence charges made against him originally by this girlfriend.

If the girlfriend did not appear in Court as a Witness, the ADA couldn't prove his allegation that he had contacted the girlfriened in violation of the terms of the Order of Protection.

[dgriffin]

But this must happen all the time. Why would the ADA in this case go that far?

[thelma]

I have no idea - ask Swimmy. The only thing I can think of is this ADA wanted to boost up the number of successes he had while an ADA to make it look good on his resume.

[frankcor]

It seems like the DA sandbagged the judge, even lied to her.

I think the real reason he had her arrested was to take her phone to check if the boyfriend had been in contact with her. It was probably easier than getting a warrant and seeking phone company records. Outrageous.

This ADA needs to be spanked, hard.

[Swimmy]

Dave,
That Complaint was poorly written. My writing professors docked us for using such legalese, e.g. "said person" and the superfluous language, e.g. "on or about."

I have never heard of a material witness exception. I will look into that and get back to you. It has always been my understanding that if you want to compel a witness to appear for testimony, you need to serve that witness with a subpoena. Without a subpoena, the witness does not have to show up and the court is powerless to force the witness to appear. That's why in practice, my law school professors taught us, always serve your witnesses with a subpoena to compel their appearance. Where a witness is served with a subpoena, if the witness refuses to appear then the court has jurisdiction over the witness to force that witness's appearance.

In this case, from the Complaint alone, it appears that the ADA was out of line. I'm interested to see how the defense Answers the Complaint. But if it's true a subpoena wasn't issued, I think we'll shortly be reading about a settlement.

[dgriffin]

swimmy said:

Dave,
That Complaint was poorly written. My writing professors docked us for using such legalese, e.g. "said person" and the superfluous language, e.g. "on or about."

I have never heard of a material witness exception. I will look into that and get back to you. It has always been my understanding that if you want to compel a witness to appear for testimony, you need to serve that witness with a subpoena. Without a subpoena, the witness does not have to show up and the court is powerless to force the witness to appear. That's why in practice, my law school professors taught us, always serve your witnesses with a subpoena to compel their appearance. Where a witness is served with a subpoena, if the witness refuses to appear then the court has jurisdiction over the witness to force that witness's appearance.

In this case, from the Complaint alone, it appears that the ADA was out of line. I'm interested to see how the defense Answers the Complaint. But if it's true a subpoena wasn't issued, I think we'll shortly be reading about a settlement.

Swimmy, I may have missed an important point here. Sounds like you're saying that the "wrong" was that he jailed her without a subpoena, or without first getting a subpoena.
Do I have it right? If so, I can certainly understand your indignation.

[Swimmy]

Yes. But I will look into what you suggested where if there is a material witness then there is no need for a subpoena and the court can compel that witness's appearance. I have never heard of that, but it doesn't mean it's not true. Law & Order may be more realistic about how the law is applied in the courts, the show also gets a lot of things wrong. My biggest beef with that show is the constant negative spin they put on circumstantial evidence. I hate when there is an arrogant attorney who says, "This is all circumstantial, and if that's the best the prosecution has to offer, then my client will be walking shortly." Circumstantial evidence is, in most cases, more damning than direct. DNA, video surveillance, finger prints, etc. that's all circumstantial and usually what makes or breaks a guilty verdict. But I digress.

[thelma]

Swimmy - you are so right about circumstantial evidence being very important. BUT - IMO, it requires a very intelligent Jury to be able to put all the pieces together and arrive at the right verdict - like they did in the Scott Peterson case. The prosecution had no direct phsycial evidence, nor did they have any evidence of how Laci was killed, or even the murder weapon.

But, the Jury put the evidence that was presented together like a jig saw puzzle and arrived at the right verdict - Guilty and Scott Peterson is now sitting on Death Row in San Quentin - where he should be.l

[Swimmy]

Oh they did decide to give him the death penalty? After his conviction the major news agencies stopped covering the story and I lost track of how the sentencing phase progressed.

[thelma]

Yep - Poor Scotty is sitting on Death Row and that "smirk" on his face is no longer there. Maybe by the time you are in your 40s, they will get around to executing him!

[dgriffin]

Hold it, folks. Are we talking about the law or about television scripting, the need to create tension, to tell a simple story in 49 minutes (less, these days, I think) and to not offend the majority, etc. Two entirely different endeavors, even if everyone wears suits in both the real and make-believe courtrooms. Ditto Judge Judy, I think.

[thelma]

Dave - I watched the entire Trial of Scott Peterson on Court TV, as well as learning all the titbits - behind the scenes which was not reported in the newspapers - off from their Message Board which I am a Member of.

The Prosecution had an up-hill battle in gathering enough evidence to arrest and bring Scotty to Trial. Of course, the lawyer his family hired to represent him left much to be desired - IMO.

This Trial proved "truth wins out" theory is still true.