Thread: General Reports
+
Add Report
Results 31 to 45 of 3349
-
02-26-24 17:21 #3319
Posts: 1852Some generalizations may be valid, but others are not.
Originally Posted by Bran001 [View Original Post]
Similarly, there are some generalizations that might be valid across all the various cases, but others that are not. Prosecutors will doubtlessly pursue similar strategies but there's no guarantee they will be equally effective, or applicable, in every case. It's my understanding that MA law guarantees the right to a jury trial, even in misdemeanor cases. That means each case will have unique defendant, a unique jury, and a set of individualized circumstances that sets it apart from every other case.
The prosecution will certainly learn from any cases in which they succeed (and from those in which they fail) but so will defense attorneys. And, if prosecutors develop a certain template they try to apply in a generalized way, good defense attorneys will find and exploit any flaws. It's an ongoing series of battles and both sides will learn and adapt. Surprises can always happen, and each jury will be asked to decide based on a specific and unique set of evidence. The next chapters for each defendant have yet to be written, IMO, and much depends on developments that are yet to unfold.
-
02-26-24 14:18 #3318
Posts: 702Originally Posted by JmSuttr [View Original Post]
-
02-26-24 13:32 #3317
Posts: 1852Media pissing into the wind, IMO
Originally Posted by TheGodsDecree [View Original Post]
"Unlike her ruling about the show-cause hearings, the Clerk-Magistrate did not consider whether a legitimate interest of the public outweighed the right of privacy of the accused in the applications,' the Jan. 12 emergency petition for the documents argued.
Since the 'incident has already attracted public attention prior to a show cause hearing, the interest in shielding the participants from publicity is necessarily diminished, while the public's legitimate interest in access is correspondingly stronger,' the petitioners further argued.
The petitioners furthered their argument by citing 2019 state caselaw that found 'the interests of transparency, accountability, and public confidence are at their apex if the conduct at issue occurred in the performance of the official's professional duties or materially bears on the official's ability to perform those duties honestly or capably."
Three quick points:
1. Since the clerk-magistrate's initial decision was to allow public hearings, while keeping the applications private, the media's assertion that the issue wasn't considered is completely bogus. The magistrate may not have elaborated on all the factors considered, but that isn't required.
2. In addition to (obviously) the defendants, even MA LE (Asst. AG) opposes the media's petition:
The AG's response contends that "granting access to the complaint applications before the show-cause hearings take place would essentially allow unfettered review, use, and potentially publication of the complainant's allegations before the accused has had the opportunity to respond and before the Clerk-Magistrate has made a probable-cause determination."
3. With the due process issue in focus, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that the SJC issues a piecemeal (applications separate from hearings) ruling. Their decision will almost certainly deal with the privacy issues, as a whole.
It's my guess that the media has nothing better to do than to try to fan the flames in a bid to show they're still engaged and relevant. I'd be very surprised if this turns out to be anything more than a giant nothingburger.
-
02-26-24 09:18 #3316
Posts: 18Less BS but still they want the walk of shame
https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/02...ir-identities/
No more victimization. I wish people could read more, because in their heads, they still have the previous BS all media published.
And then came the aptly named John Does themselves.
The first 13 of a total 17 to file opposition to release jointly argued that not only should the applications remain private but that the magistrate erred in allowing the hearings to be public at all.
This error should not be compounded by opening the door to public dissemination of police reports and other documents, their motion to intervene states.
They further argue that the John Does are not powerful and elite as the petitioners describe They are private citizens who face adverse and embarrassing collateral consequences if their name and image are published before they have the opportunity to face this case at a clerks hearing or in a court of law.
-
02-23-24 21:08 #3315
Posts: 1852That's a hard one to answer
Originally Posted by Comcast7777 [View Original Post]
The SJC is obviously the next inflection point. If they rule against the defendants, either by allowing the previous ruling to stand or by the full court deciding in favor of public hearings, then I expect more delays. Defense attorneys (Some? Most? All?) will surely petition federal courts to look at the constitutional issues. And federal avenues of appeal = even more delays.
A ruling for private hearings, however, means prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to work behind a veil of privacy. Some defendants might cut a deal that (hopefully) keeps them off the media radar screen. Others, presumably high-profile individuals, will likely be targeted by prosecutors in order to to send a message. It's doubtful that latter group will be offered any deals because the media will be clamoring for show trials and punishment. Prosecutors, in light of statements they've made, will be under pressure to save face and give the media the circus they've been asking for. I wish I could see some sequence of events that doesn't lead down that path, but unfortunately I can't.
With respect to a second round of referrals, I think prosecutors will wait to see how things go with Round #1. This is their "A List" with, one would assume, the highest profile defendants and strongest evidence. If this turns into a ginormous clusterfuck there may not be another round, IMO. That being said, I'm pretty sure prosecutors and LE are working hard to try to have a "B List" that could be rolled out. Whether they'll be successful is anyone's guess.
Bottom-line: Private hearings should move forward quickly, assuming the SJC rules that way. Otherwise, more delays are very likely. And, while time may not be a major factor for prosecutors, we know that shit can unexpectedly happen. More delays = more chances for complications to arise. Rather than focus on time, I'll be looking to see whether prosecutors are getting pummeled by adverse court rulings, or other negative (shit happens) kinds of things. The more painful defense attorneys can make Round #1, the better the chance prosecutors won't want to bother with a Round #2.
-
02-23-24 14:04 #3314
Posts: 24Your insight has been invaluable. It's very much appreciated.
Is it fair to assume that the longer this is stretched out, the less likely it is that a second round of referrals will happen?
Originally Posted by JmSuttr [View Original Post]
-
02-23-24 10:52 #3313
Posts: 1852Time is relative
Originally Posted by Comcast7777 [View Original Post]
Courts dislike controversy so it wouldn't be a surprise for them to delay certain decisions until things have settled down. Despite the constitutional questions at issue, the underlying misdemeanor cases are not especially time-sensitive. If the info in the below link is correct, their session doesn't end until May. That gives them 2-3 months to deal with pending cases. I don't know if they behave like SCOTUS but, if they do, then a whole shitload of decisions might be issued on the very last day.
https://www.mass.gov/about-the-supreme-judicial-court
Also, while they certainly could reject the appeals, as in refusing to hear them and thereby allowing the single Justice's earlier ruling to stand, that would almost certainly trigger defense attorneys marching right over to the federal courts. That's because the due process questions are genuine constitutional issues that can't be side-stepped. Knowing that, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the full court doesn't review the matter. I doubt they'll want to punt on this one.
I'll be interested to see, with so many parties involved, whether they will schedule oral arguments. It appears those are held the first week of each month the SJC is in session.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/su...oral-arguments
Here's a link to the court calendar:
https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/calendar
(Nothing yet for docket #13551).
And here are links for viewing the oral argument sessions:
Live - https://boston.suffolk.edu/sjc/.
Archived - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOf...che29CG41v19cA.
-
02-22-24 22:08 #3312
Posts: 274Discussions with working girls.
Originally Posted by Nrlmus [View Original Post]
-
02-22-24 20:39 #3311
Posts: 1805Good morning Vietnam! LOL
Originally Posted by JohnDick75 [View Original Post]
One of those girls is actually scheduled to be returning to Beantown in mid-March and she's been telling me secrets like you wouldn't believe. I've got all the nuclear codes, names of few spies that we have in Kor, I mean Russia, where all the bodies are buried, which ones have already been excavated: the works!
-
02-22-24 20:16 #3310
Posts: 230Originally Posted by ParamAhmad [View Original Post]
-
02-22-24 19:51 #3309
Posts: 24Can we assume now that the SJC didn't reject the appeal and that the full court will decide the outcome?
It's been two weeks, I figured we would've heard some news by now especially if the appeal was denied.
-
02-21-24 08:19 #3308
Posts: 80Originally Posted by MaybeSometime [View Original Post]
-
02-21-24 08:12 #3307
Posts: 2040Originally Posted by Bastardale [View Original Post]
-
02-20-24 23:43 #3306
Posts: 417Originally Posted by KashkaiBoy [View Original Post]
But if they are Korean who were born in China then get Korean nationality later, they may be more Chinese than Korean. Just like Russian Israeli who got Israel nationality only cause they have Jewish ancestors. Their brain is just Chinese, and real exploitation can be likely.
Hey east coast Korean heritage Chinese lies that they are Korean a lot cause s Korea is more welcomed in America society, most of you here can not distinguish them by accent while Koreans can easily. They s Korean even distinguish North Korean by accent.
If they are Japanese, maybe or maybe not. Japan sometimes have very weird social norm unlike most developed countries.
If they are Thai, Philippians, or others from se Asia, lower possibility of exploitation in America cause it is not easy for them with se countries passports to enter America so triffickers would not take too much risk when benefit from it is not that high. Hey let's be honest. Whatever yellow fever guys say, Asian women is not majority taste yet unlike east European girls or young young Latinas that eagerly try to come.
Anyway if you guys try to find, one media even reveal I'd (California drivers license of three arrested males).
-
02-20-24 20:21 #3305
Posts: 199Originally Posted by Bastardale [View Original Post]