Author Topic: Jailed 96 days on bogus charge: It is no one’s fault?  (Read 633 times)

Offline imchills

  • Assistant
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Jailed 96 days on bogus charge: It is no one’s fault?
« on: October 20, 2016, 04:22:06 pm »
ACKERMAN, Miss. — Pulled over for traffic violations, Jessica Jauch was held for 96 days in a Mississippi jail without seeing a judge, getting a lawyer or having a chance to make bail. She was charged with a felony based on a secretly recorded video that prosecutors finally acknowledged showed her committing no crime.

Only when she finally got a hearing and a lawyer, who persuaded prosecutors to watch the video, did the case fall apart.

Then, the 34-year-old mother sued, alleging violations of her rights to bail, legal representation, a speedy trial and liberty.

But a federal judge dismissed her case against Choctaw County and Sheriff Cloyd Halford last month, ruling that because she had been indicted by a grand jury on the felony drug charge, none of her constitutional and legal rights were violated.

The outcome has flummoxed civil liberties advocates who have been waging legal battles to reform Mississippi’s criminal justice system, which provides almost no state funding for public defenders.

“I can’t think of a situation where denying someone an appearance before a judge for 96 days after arrest passes constitutional muster,” said attorney Cliff Johnson, who has sued Mississippi localities over pretrial detention and high bails for indigent defendants.

Similar lawsuits have been filed across the country. The American Civil Liberties Union is working state by state to force increased funding for public defenders, particularly in places where court-appointed lawyers depend on stingy local governments and court fees to get paid.

“I think each state suffers from the symptoms we see in Mississippi,” said Brandon Buskey, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “This state just seems to have all of them at the same time.”

Pulled over for traffic offenses on April 26, 2012, Jauch was held thereafter because prosecutors relied on the word of an informant who said Jauch sold her eight Xanax pills for $40 in February 2011, according to court papers.

More at

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8758
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Jailed 96 days on bogus charge: It is no one’s fault?
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2019, 06:16:45 am »
Monday, 12th August 2019
James Comey shows our criminal justice system works as intended
by Joseph Moreno

We know former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton transmitted classified information on her personal email server but faced no criminal charges, with her actions declared by then FBI Director James Comey as not worthy of prosecution. His deputy Andrew McCabe was later found by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to have had unauthorized media contacts and then to have lied about them to investigators, and he was fired but suffered no criminal exposure. Now it is reported that Comey himself has been found by Horowitz to have shared government memos containing potentially classified information with The New York Times, yet the Justice Department does not intend to charge him with a crime for it.

Is this the Washington establishment protecting its own? Or is this, as advanced by some on the right, a conspiracy to shield the enemies of President Trump from? Are senior government officials simply above the law that us mere citizens of this nation remain subject to? The answer is no. While it may appear confusing and unfair to many Americans, this is really the criminal justice system functioning the way it was intended.

A basic tenet within our system is that prosecutors wield discretion, recognizing that with limited resources there is no way every potential violation can be prosecuted. This prosecutorial discretion is not absolute or subject to exercise on a whim. There are factors set forth by Justice Department policy that must be considered in the decision whether to prosecute or decline a case. These include, among others, the nature of the offense, the quality of the evidence, the past history of the alleged perpetrator, and the likelihood that the behavior will occur in the future.

For certain crimes, a critical component of this prosecutorial analysis is the question of intent. Actions can be the result of poor decision making, negligence, or mistake, yet they may not rise to the level of criminality if the perpetrator did not willfully violate the law. Whether a prosecutor thinks the evidence exists to prove intent is a judgment call that must be made on a case by case basis. That is another reason, when it comes to federal employees, that misconduct may result in disciplinary options up to and including termination but still not end with any criminal charges.

Then there is the question of whether political ramifications should have an impact on whether to bring charges. Prosecutors and officials within the Justice Department are supposed to make these decisions without regard for their personal politics. But that does not mean the political fallout of a high stakes prosecution can be completely disregarded. When Justice Department officials at the highest levels must grapple with the question of whether to charge a Cabinet secretary, a senior FBI official, or other top ranking individual, they know full well their decision will be heavily scrutinized by the public for political bias. This likely means in close calls the decision leans in favor of not bringing a criminal case.

Thus, as it turns out, not every wrong committed or every instance of misconduct can or should become a criminal matter. Many were furious that Clinton never faced charges, convinced that the combination of President Obama, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Comey managed to stack the deck in her favor. But the reality is that there were serious questions about whether prosecutors would have been able to prove that Clinton intentionally mishandled classified information. In the case of McCabe, there were legitimate factual issues around whether McCabe had authority to make certain contacts with the media and whether his statements to investigators were lies or instead legitimate efforts to correct the record. In a close call and with all these factors to consider, the system rightfully found in favor of not pursuing charges.

As for Comey, it is difficult to understate the damage his actions have had on public confidence in the FBI and the criminal justice system. If he had any legitimate concerns about the actions of Trump, there were multiple options for appropriately reporting those concerns either internally within the Justice Department or to Congress. He chose instead to improperly take memos he had prepared in detailing his conversations with Trump, which may or may not have contained classified information but were clearly government property, and leak them to The New York Times. His cynical goal of triggering a special counsel appointment succeeded in giving us the ordeal that was the Russia investigation by Robert Mueller.

Horowitz has impeccable credentials as a principled and nonpartisan public servant and, for full disclosure, he was my mentor and law partner before his return to government service. While his report has yet to be released, any findings he makes against Comey or others should be taken very seriously. However, that said, any findings of misconduct or even of potential legal violations may not necessarily translate into a criminal case based on the many factors and considerations that have to go into making charging decisions. Far from being a conspiracy or a defect within our criminal justice system, this is exactly the way the process should work.

No, this writer is either a liar or willfully ignorant.

The American criminal justice system is corrupt as hell.

Would You Like To Know More?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 08:05:27 am by Battle »