Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Another "non-political" issue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy" data-source="post: 285031" data-attributes="member: 5096"><p>Judges are not to have any connection to the case. The subsitute judge was further from the case then the others.</p><p> </p><p>My brother in law is a state judge. He was on docket to try a 13 yr old in our town for killing an infant in the family daycare. He had to turn down the case because I worked with the dad of the 13 yr old. No way would my connection to the father and to brother in law have any influence on the case (brother in law does not discuss cases outside of work and would not ask my input because that would be wrong) but because it was a connection non-the-less, he had to excuse himself.</p><p> </p><p>Judges need to make the call if their connection to ANYONE on the case how ever remote by any level may <em>appear </em>to be controversial. Not that it is, but if someone would think it is. The judges that turned it down may not be close friends of the family but if it was in their jursidiction, they most likely are connected somehow either to the family OR the store owners/workers. There are so many more connections to consider than the girl and her parents. My being a co-worker to the dad disqualified my brother-in-law. It can go that far down in the effort to provide the most fair trial.</p><p> </p><p>They can not look at the plea that is being entered because that plea can be changed (or attempted to be changed) within the course of the trial. They are given the names of the parties involved and must decide on that alone if they should judge or not - they do not know the facts at that time and should not have access to what plea was enterred until they accept the case. It was not a matter of her plea, but that they knew her or a relative or friend of hers or could have been connected to the store. Maybe they knew the owner of the store then that would really look like unfair justice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy, post: 285031, member: 5096"] Judges are not to have any connection to the case. The subsitute judge was further from the case then the others. My brother in law is a state judge. He was on docket to try a 13 yr old in our town for killing an infant in the family daycare. He had to turn down the case because I worked with the dad of the 13 yr old. No way would my connection to the father and to brother in law have any influence on the case (brother in law does not discuss cases outside of work and would not ask my input because that would be wrong) but because it was a connection non-the-less, he had to excuse himself. Judges need to make the call if their connection to ANYONE on the case how ever remote by any level may [I]appear [/I]to be controversial. Not that it is, but if someone would think it is. The judges that turned it down may not be close friends of the family but if it was in their jursidiction, they most likely are connected somehow either to the family OR the store owners/workers. There are so many more connections to consider than the girl and her parents. My being a co-worker to the dad disqualified my brother-in-law. It can go that far down in the effort to provide the most fair trial. They can not look at the plea that is being entered because that plea can be changed (or attempted to be changed) within the course of the trial. They are given the names of the parties involved and must decide on that alone if they should judge or not - they do not know the facts at that time and should not have access to what plea was enterred until they accept the case. It was not a matter of her plea, but that they knew her or a relative or friend of hers or could have been connected to the store. Maybe they knew the owner of the store then that would really look like unfair justice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Another "non-political" issue
Top