Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

I don't think that's true. For several types of misdemeanor charges in District Court, the "trial" is immediately held in front of a judge. That's just what I've observed. Maybe someone who knows what they are talking about can chime in.

District Court cases are indeed bench trials that are restricted to traffic cases and any misdemeanor that doesn’t have jail time.

This isn’t true. All misdemeanors (which are punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a fine up to $2500) are heard in District Court to start. You have an automatic right to appeal a District Court traffic or criminal case to Circuit Court, where you are able to demand a jury trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

I don't think that's true. For several types of misdemeanor charges in District Court, the "trial" is immediately held in front of a judge. That's just what I've observed. Maybe someone who knows what they are talking about can chime in.

District Court cases are indeed bench trials that are restricted to traffic cases and any misdemeanor that doesn’t have jail time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

I don't think that's true. For several types of misdemeanor charges in District Court, the "trial" is immediately held in front of a judge. That's just what I've observed. Maybe someone who knows what they are talking about can chime in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Was misdemeanor assault on the Loudoun list? She said they would still prosecute violent crimes.

Misdemeanor assault is probably the most common misdemeanor offense that is committed. But let’s presume that she instead won’t prosecute property crimes. Police arrest a suspect on grounds of reasonable suspicion that they think looks like the person in a Ring camera. Should they also get to lead prosecution? What if it is a misdemeanor drug paraphernalia offense where the evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search? A lot of 4th Amendment law is premised on police powers operating separate from prosecutors. This is a system that would be set up for broad abuse for police against the poor in particular. Because a prosecutor is expected to review the constitutionality of evidence and arrests because they theoretically they can be professionally sanctioned for presenting such evidence to the court. If you can afford an attorney, you can request a jury trial where you believe there was a wrongful arrest or the evidence was wrongly obtained. If you cannot afford an attorney, then you’re going to be seriously screwed in this system.

I mean, maybe giving the prosecutor’s office the resources they need would help.

It sounds like this isn’t an uncommon scenario, however. And your apocalyptic predictions appear to not be an issue elsewhere. There are still judges.

If anything, the RWNJs are more freaked out thinking there will be more exonerations. They aren’t worried about corrupt cops

She has resources, she just can’t find anyone willing to work for her and not quit. The previous staff left, and she’s been unable to retain staff that she has hired

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Was misdemeanor assault on the Loudoun list? She said they would still prosecute violent crimes.

Misdemeanor assault is probably the most common misdemeanor offense that is committed. But let’s presume that she instead won’t prosecute property crimes. Police arrest a suspect on grounds of reasonable suspicion that they think looks like the person in a Ring camera. Should they also get to lead prosecution? What if it is a misdemeanor drug paraphernalia offense where the evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search? A lot of 4th Amendment law is premised on police powers operating separate from prosecutors. This is a system that would be set up for broad abuse for police against the poor in particular. Because a prosecutor is expected to review the constitutionality of evidence and arrests because they theoretically they can be professionally sanctioned for presenting such evidence to the court. If you can afford an attorney, you can request a jury trial where you believe there was a wrongful arrest or the evidence was wrongly obtained. If you cannot afford an attorney, then you’re going to be seriously screwed in this system.

I mean, maybe giving the prosecutor’s office the resources they need would help.

It sounds like this isn’t an uncommon scenario, however. And your apocalyptic predictions appear to not be an issue elsewhere. There are still judges.

If anything, the RWNJs are more freaked out thinking there will be more exonerations. They aren’t worried about corrupt cops

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Was misdemeanor assault on the Loudoun list? She said they would still prosecute violent crimes.

Misdemeanor assault is probably the most common misdemeanor offense that is committed. But let’s presume that she instead won’t prosecute property crimes. Police arrest a suspect on grounds of reasonable suspicion that they think looks like the person in a Ring camera. Should they also get to lead prosecution? What if it is a misdemeanor drug paraphernalia offense where the evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search? A lot of 4th Amendment law is premised on police powers operating separate from prosecutors. This is a system that would be set up for broad abuse for police against the poor in particular. Because a prosecutor is expected to review the constitutionality of evidence and arrests because they theoretically they can be professionally sanctioned for presenting such evidence to the court. If you can afford an attorney, you can request a jury trial where you believe there was a wrongful arrest or the evidence was wrongly obtained. If you cannot afford an attorney, then you’re going to be seriously screwed in this system.

I mean, maybe giving the prosecutor’s office the resources they need would help.

It sounds like this isn’t an uncommon scenario, however. And your apocalyptic predictions appear to not be an issue elsewhere. There are still judges.

If anything, the RWNJs are more freaked out thinking there will be more exonerations. They aren’t worried about corrupt cops

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Was misdemeanor assault on the Loudoun list? She said they would still prosecute violent crimes.

Misdemeanor assault is probably the most common misdemeanor offense that is committed. But let’s presume that she instead won’t prosecute property crimes. Police arrest a suspect on grounds of reasonable suspicion that they think looks like the person in a Ring camera. Should they also get to lead prosecution? What if it is a misdemeanor drug paraphernalia offense where the evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search? A lot of 4th Amendment law is premised on police powers operating separate from prosecutors. This is a system that would be set up for broad abuse for police against the poor in particular. Because a prosecutor is expected to review the constitutionality of evidence and arrests because they theoretically they can be professionally sanctioned for presenting such evidence to the court. If you can afford an attorney, you can request a jury trial where you believe there was a wrongful arrest or the evidence was wrongly obtained. If you cannot afford an attorney, then you’re going to be seriously screwed in this system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Was misdemeanor assault on the Loudoun list? She said they would still prosecute violent crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

It only goes this way because defendants allow it to go this way. You do not have to waive your right to a jury trial if you don’t want to. The presumption that people have is that the “Kangroo Court” process is in place specifically because everyone knows that it ends with minor penalties. If you feel that you are wrongly arrested, you can still have a jury trial and present your evidence. Drunk is public is one thing, but what about misdemeanor assault? The facts in those cases are not always so cut and dry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are misrepresenting or not understanding what the article says. The office doesn't have enough staff to prosecute everything, so they are prioritizing. That doesn't mean that nothing will happen in regard to the crimes that they won't prosecute. Those charged will still go to court and the police will present evidence. I don't think it will require a prosecutor to explain to a judge that police radar shows you going 88 mph because you lacked reading comprehension and didn't think that you would end up in court.

That's how traffic cases in fairfax works. You're asking the cops to do heavy lifting in less clear cases that may require witnesses other than the arresting officer

+1
In Fairfax the police officers prosecute certain crimes like drunk in public. It's kind of a kangaroo court, but it's very basic and usually results in a small fine. The judge will hear maybe 10 public intoxication cases in a row and it can be quite entertaining. The downside is that someone arrested is basically screwed because there is no opportunity for a defense lawyer to meet with the prosecutor to have the charges dropped. And usually the police officer doesn't go into detail when presenting evidence to the judge.

Anonymous wrote:OP you can still get a fine for going 89mph. Probably a hefty one too. You just don’t have to go to court and potentially lose your license unless you contest it..