This story made big news in the area. As a result a State Rep now wants to impeach the judge. I think she made the right call, and the public anger should fall on the prosecutor's office. The former prosecutor of Miller county (who left last year), claims that delays are due to defendant though only one continuance is documented. The failure of a prosecutor to bring to trial a man who confessed on videotape to the crime for half a decade mind-boggling, but then I'm not a lawyer so what do I know? Perhaps the vaunted Languish legal team can provide some insight.
QuoteJefferson City, Mo. — Cole County Judge Patricia Joyce issued her formal written order revealing the reasons why a confessed child sodomist was released from jail.
The order, released Wednesday, lists the events leading up to and resulting in Joyce's decision to let Aaron Fisher walk free.
In 2009, Miller County Prosecutors charged Fisher with two counts of forcible child sodomy. Up until last Friday, Fisher spent six years in the Miller County jail without bond.
His case was delayed several times, according to court documents.
State Representative Rocky Miller (R-Lake Ozark) launched an investigation into Fisher's release Monday. He said Fisher's legal team is apparently responsible for the case delays.
In her written order, Joyce noted no record was made to protect or address the rights raised in a motion Fisher had filed for a speedy trial.
In the order, Joyce writes " The Constitution of the United States and Missouri guarantee citizens the right to a speedy trial. Without the right to a speedy and fair trial, citizens could be held against their will, for excessive amounts of time, without regard to their rights." In conclusion, Joyce wrote the court determined Fisher's right was violated.
KRCG13 reached out to Joyce Wednesday for comment on her decision. Her secretary said judicial ethics prevent Joyce from talking about the case.
Monday, Representative Miller released a statement announcing he would investigate Joyce and her decision to release Fisher. He said Fisher allegedly admitted on video to sodomizing his 5 month old child and after too many delays, Joyce made the decision to release him back into society without the benefit of a trial.
"This appears to be the height of incompetency for a Circuit Court Judge in Missouri and I will be reviewing her performance to verify that it has risen to the level of impeachment," Rep. Miller said.
Is he gaming the system?
Goddamn it. Could someone move this?
I don't understand the sequence of events. Catch child rapist and then don't bring him to trial? That a thing in Missouri?
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2015, 04:08:53 AM
I don't understand the sequence of events. Catch child rapist and then don't bring him to trial? That a thing in Missouri?
Apparently. Keep in mind that Prosecuting attorney is an elected position here. The prosecutor was either lazy, incompetent, or held the Constitution in contempt.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2015, 04:39:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2015, 04:08:53 AM
I don't understand the sequence of events. Catch child rapist and then don't bring him to trial? That a thing in Missouri?
Apparently. Keep in mind that Prosecuting attorney is an elected position here. The prosecutor was either lazy, incompetent, or held the Constitution in contempt.
I'll point out that it is possible that the delays were due to the defendant and his lawyers, as the state rep claims. However, unless that's the case, the judge made the correct legal call. A regrettable situation, but not the judge's fault.
If the judicial system of Missouri allows a defendant to delay a trial by six years, the system needs reform. The court that issued the initial warrant to arrest and detain him should also have some kind of obligation to follow up on that detention and either free him or make sure there is a trial. So multiple parties seem to have failed here.
So even though he's released for now, can he still be charged and a process can go ahead?
Oh I thought this was a thread about Polish court refusing to extradite Polanski. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 09:15:27 AM
Oh I thought this was a thread about Polish court refusing to extradite Polanski. :D
I thought it was a thread on the Roman Catholic Chruch.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2015, 04:39:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2015, 04:08:53 AM
I don't understand the sequence of events. Catch child rapist and then don't bring him to trial? That a thing in Missouri?
Apparently. Keep in mind that Prosecuting attorney is an elected position here. The prosecutor was either lazy, incompetent, or held the Constitution in contempt.
There are other options you know.
Judicial stays for delay are, well, not common, but not unknown, up here in Canada. Here we know they as Askov applications (from the name of a leading case, R v Askov). There's a lot of dancing around by all sides with respect to Askov applications. Here I can't necessarily pass judgment: six years does sound like a very long time, but I've seen it where defence manages to drag out delay (though trying to pin blame on the Crown) in order to get a judicial stay.
Maybe it was a mistake and he was a child therapist?
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 09:15:27 AM
Oh I thought this was a thread about Polish court refusing to extradite Polanski. :D
Same
Quote from: Syt on November 01, 2015, 07:08:59 AM
So even though he's released for now, can he still be charged and a process can go ahead?
I'm not sure.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2015, 02:12:57 AM
Maybe it was a mistake and he was a child therapist?
I don't think he was a candidate for Celebrity Jeopardy. :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on November 01, 2015, 07:08:59 AM
So even though he's released for now, can he still be charged and a process can go ahead?
Well, generally, unless there is a court ruling acquitting him, double jeopardy does not apply, so he can still be charged. Unless the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitation, but I assume it isn't (given that Polanski's case seems to imply there isn't any when it comes to sexual crimes against minors). Could be a state-by-state thing though.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:33:33 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 01, 2015, 07:08:59 AM
So even though he's released for now, can he still be charged and a process can go ahead?
Well, generally, unless there is a court ruling acquitting him, double jeopardy does not apply, so he can still be charged. Unless the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitation, but I assume it isn't (given that Polanski's case seems to imply there isn't any when it comes to sexual crimes against minors). Could be a state-by-state thing though.
Well in the US, a case can be dismissed with prejudice and I think that means it can't be refiled. It might apply here. It's unfortunate, because the guy is guilty (assuming that the evidence that the Prosecutor's office says exists actually exists, and if it doesn't that might explain why they kept it from trial), and should be in jail. Still the guy has rights and disregard of those rights is also a serious crime.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:33:33 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 01, 2015, 07:08:59 AM
So even though he's released for now, can he still be charged and a process can go ahead?
Well, generally, unless there is a court ruling acquitting him, double jeopardy does not apply, so he can still be charged. Unless the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitation, but I assume it isn't (given that Polanski's case seems to imply there isn't any when it comes to sexual crimes against minors). Could be a state-by-state thing though.
Statues of limitations set a time limit between the commission of an alleged crime and the bringing of formal charges. Formal charges against Polanski were filed well within the time limit. In fact, his guilt had already been adjudicated. He fled to avoid serving his sentence. Basically, his status is the same as someone who has escaped from prison.
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Statues of limitations set a time limit between the commission of an alleged crime and the bringing of formal charges. Formal charges against Polanski were filed well within the time limit. In fact, his guilt had already been adjudicated. He fled to avoid serving his sentence. Basically, his status is the same as someone who has escaped from prison.
That's actually something I know nothing about - are there any limitations on returning someone to custody who escaped from prison? I assume that there aren't, but I have no idea.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Statues of limitations set a time limit between the commission of an alleged crime and the bringing of formal charges. Formal charges against Polanski were filed well within the time limit. In fact, his guilt had already been adjudicated. He fled to avoid serving his sentence. Basically, his status is the same as someone who has escaped from prison.
That's actually something I know nothing about - are there any limitations on returning someone to custody who escaped from prison? I assume that there aren't, but I have no idea.
Limitations like a statute of limitations? No. There may be some kind of extraordinary remedy available (I dunno, an abuse of process kind of argument) but that's about it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 04:44:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Statues of limitations set a time limit between the commission of an alleged crime and the bringing of formal charges. Formal charges against Polanski were filed well within the time limit. In fact, his guilt had already been adjudicated. He fled to avoid serving his sentence. Basically, his status is the same as someone who has escaped from prison.
That's actually something I know nothing about - are there any limitations on returning someone to custody who escaped from prison? I assume that there aren't, but I have no idea.
Limitations like a statute of limitations? No. There may be some kind of extraordinary remedy available (I dunno, an abuse of process kind of argument) but that's about it.
Maybe something discretionary like a pardon?
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:33:33 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 01, 2015, 07:08:59 AM
So even though he's released for now, can he still be charged and a process can go ahead?
Well, generally, unless there is a court ruling acquitting him, double jeopardy does not apply, so he can still be charged. Unless the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitation, but I assume it isn't (given that Polanski's case seems to imply there isn't any when it comes to sexual crimes against minors). Could be a state-by-state thing though.
Statues of limitations set a time limit between the commission of an alleged crime and the bringing of formal charges. Formal charges against Polanski were filed well within the time limit. In fact, his guilt had already been adjudicated. He fled to avoid serving his sentence. Basically, his status is the same as someone who has escaped from prison.
In Polish legal system (which is based on French and German) you have three different statutes of limitations - for bringing charges, for sentencing and for enforcing the punishment. Each one is longer than the previous one, but at the end of the day even if you have a prison sentence pending, you can eventually get out of it through lapse of time.
Btw, "statues of limitations" sounds like something out of D&D.
Edit: Apparently, since my bar exam (I don't practice criminal law), the first two statutes of limitation have been unified, so there are only two. For a child rape (which is not a gang rape or rape with particular cruelty), the initial statute of limitation would be 15 years from the moment the crime was committed (irrespective of whether the charges were brought or not) and then the statute of limitations on the enforcement of sentence would be 30 years from the sentence if he was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison, 15 years for shorter imprisonment, and 10 years for any other sentence (such as community service or a fine).
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Statues of limitations set a time limit between the commission of an alleged crime and the bringing of formal charges. Formal charges against Polanski were filed well within the time limit. In fact, his guilt had already been adjudicated. He fled to avoid serving his sentence. Basically, his status is the same as someone who has escaped from prison.
That's actually something I know nothing about - are there any limitations on returning someone to custody who escaped from prison? I assume that there aren't, but I have no idea.
Well, they can die.