Friday, as always, was terrible at the zoo. For some reason, Fridays are extraordinarily hectic but nothing gets done. . . .
The day ended with the Labuanan Plea. An old Philipino, Labuanan had been charges with drunk driving, having an open container and driving without a license. He could understand English albeit with some difficulty. I worked out a deal with Jerry Sevier under which Labuanan would plead to 25102(a) [drunk driving] plus one other count for two days jail with credit for time served [2 days] plus a $315.00 fine.
Bradstreet would not buy it, so I dropped Counts II and III altogether. Jerry then began to explain the waiver of rights form to Labuanan. It was a long litany of quids and pro quo's designed by the Supreme Court to insure that all guilty pleas are knowingly and voluntarily made.
Labuanan began to have trouble with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” “compulsory service of process,” and “giving up defences” although he did manage to grasp “twelve people deciding.”
After about five minutes with this nonsense in open court, the right honourable Bradstreet took over.
“Can you say, with your thought, that your are guilty?”
“Yes, yes, I am guilty”
“Are you saying this because you are in fact guilty or has anyone made any promises to you to make you say you are guilty?”
“Yes, yes, I am guilty”
Five more minutes of this charade reveal that the defendant had not in fact been stopped while actually driving but only after he had come to rest at the side of the highway. Still, Labuanan admitted that he had been driving. Even so, there now began to be talk about having a court trial, to which end an interpreter would have to be summoned up from Earlimart. The purpose of this judge-trial would be to convict Labuanan since he could not “knowingly” plead guilty to the court's satisfaction. In other words, we would force him to plead not guilty only to turn around and prove him wrong.
The man only wanted to plead, pay and get back to Indio, where he lived, six hours away. I couldn't stand the gutless over-refined absurdity of the whole thing. At length I stood up and suggested that the problem would not be solved by a translator since the defendant's trouble was not in comprehension of English but in understanding legal concepts. At this point, Bradstreet, answered “You're the trouble.” Sevier later said that Bradstreet was grinning but I didn't notice it.
I smouldered for about 30 seconds and then said, “We dismiss.” I walked up to the clerk, filled out a dismissal form and flipped in back to her. Without looking at Bradstreet, I strode out of the courtroom.
The day ended with the Labuanan Plea. An old Philipino, Labuanan had been charges with drunk driving, having an open container and driving without a license. He could understand English albeit with some difficulty. I worked out a deal with Jerry Sevier under which Labuanan would plead to 25102(a) [drunk driving] plus one other count for two days jail with credit for time served [2 days] plus a $315.00 fine.
Bradstreet would not buy it, so I dropped Counts II and III altogether. Jerry then began to explain the waiver of rights form to Labuanan. It was a long litany of quids and pro quo's designed by the Supreme Court to insure that all guilty pleas are knowingly and voluntarily made.
Labuanan began to have trouble with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” “compulsory service of process,” and “giving up defences” although he did manage to grasp “twelve people deciding.”
After about five minutes with this nonsense in open court, the right honourable Bradstreet took over.
“Can you say, with your thought, that your are guilty?”
“Yes, yes, I am guilty”
“Are you saying this because you are in fact guilty or has anyone made any promises to you to make you say you are guilty?”
“Yes, yes, I am guilty”
Five more minutes of this charade reveal that the defendant had not in fact been stopped while actually driving but only after he had come to rest at the side of the highway. Still, Labuanan admitted that he had been driving. Even so, there now began to be talk about having a court trial, to which end an interpreter would have to be summoned up from Earlimart. The purpose of this judge-trial would be to convict Labuanan since he could not “knowingly” plead guilty to the court's satisfaction. In other words, we would force him to plead not guilty only to turn around and prove him wrong.
The man only wanted to plead, pay and get back to Indio, where he lived, six hours away. I couldn't stand the gutless over-refined absurdity of the whole thing. At length I stood up and suggested that the problem would not be solved by a translator since the defendant's trouble was not in comprehension of English but in understanding legal concepts. At this point, Bradstreet, answered “You're the trouble.” Sevier later said that Bradstreet was grinning but I didn't notice it.
I smouldered for about 30 seconds and then said, “We dismiss.” I walked up to the clerk, filled out a dismissal form and flipped in back to her. Without looking at Bradstreet, I strode out of the courtroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment