Justin Thyme <abuse@localhost.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:44:33 -0600, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Justin Thyme <abuse@localhost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:49:23 -0600, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Was told it might take up to three years ... or even longer.
>>>>
>>>>So ... I'm here; but with "Pretrial Restrictions" on me, just as if I
>>>>had been found guilty and was on Probation.
>>>>
>>>How does that not violate the constitutional guarantee of the right to
>>>a speedy trial?
>>
>>The *trial* was supposedly on-time; even though we did object to
>>several instances of the prosecution delaying things. They pointed
>>out that we also put in some delays; although our delays were far
>>smaller and only in response to theirs. (They pushed for a delay to
>>do something; and we asked for a delay so we could respond AFTER they
>>did whatever it was; since both what they did and our responses were
>>supposedly tied to fixed dates.)
>>
>>The lawyers pointed out to me that while there's a Constitutional
>>Guarantee of a "Speedy Trial"; there's nothing there about a speedy
>>*verdict* or even sentencing, once the trial is over. In this case we
>>didn't object *too* hard; because my defense team pointed out that in
>>most such cases the delay was in my favor.
>>
>>Still, there *IS* a "remedy" to the slow verdict as pointed out by my
>>lawyer: Either I or the Prosecution *could* petition the judge's
>>superiors to pressure the judge to "do his job" and issue a verdict.
>>
>>OTOH, if pressured to give a verdict by either side, wouldn't it then
>>be likely that the judge would then, in a pique of annoyance, say
>>something like, "You want a verdict? HERE is your bloody verdict!"
>>and rule against whichever side applied the pressure? Not exactly the
>>way to get a ruling in your favor ... Say what?
>>
>>I suspect that if a verdict was rendered and it was "guilty" then
>>sentencing would normally be given within about three months; though
>>it could be immediate. In any case, because of almost certain
>>appeals, I'd soon be back in the same state for probably several more
>>years while the case worked its way through higher courts ... even if
>>I was eventually acquitted on constitutional grounds. I suspect that
>>the *worst* case for even longer delays would be if the higher-court
>>sent the case back for retrial and more proper consideration of issues
>>the judge already dismissed in the pretrial hearings. Then I'd be
>>facing the whole set of delays before, during, and after trial that I
>>was about four years ago. ;-{
>
>I understand that you are at their mercy and that it wouldn't be wise
>to rock the boat. However I'm willing to bet that if push came to
>shove, a 3+ year delay in the verdict wouldn't pass constitutional
>muster. The "speedy trial" vs. "speedy verdict" distinction is a
>semantic artifice. Appeals aside, a right to speedy trial implies a
>right to full adjudication within a reasonable length of time.
*I* think so.
*You* think so.
These people however, are lawyers.
If it doesn't SAY so in the fine-print, it's not there.
It would take yet another Supreme-Court ruling to make it so.
And, most likely, you'd never get one; as the SCOTUS just wouldn't
bother to take the case.
The only way to get there, would be to make it VERY important; which a
case like mine probably wouldn't qualify for. Mine is important for
First and Fourteenth Amendments; and if it ever got up to the Supreme
Court, would be decided on those issues.
About the only sort of case I can see it getting there for, is if at
least TWO separate murder (or worse) cases ended up in Appeals Courts
in different states; and one such court ruled that taking too long to
deliver a verdict was against the Sixth Amendment right to a Speedy
Trial, while another court ruled that such speed only applied to the
trial itself.
Oh, it *could* get there, If I was found guilty about six years or
more after the actual trial, my attorney's appealed that on the
speedy-trial grounds, won, and the Prosecution appealed THAT to the
Supreme Court.
However, a three-year wait would likely be ignored; as such waits have
happened quite a few times before; and the SCOTUS is very reticent
about mucking around with things that already have precedent.
I think they'd figure that if a TRIAL took three years to get to under
"reasonable delays and circumstances", especially as (to their notion)
I'm not being "unduly harmed" by said delay (not being actually in
prison) then taking the same amount of time for the judge to consider
the verdict wouldn't be "unreasonable" either.
Of course, this is ALL legalese; and I'm not a lawyer.
However, I'm fairly sure that such an issue just hasn't been raised
before, at least not to Upper Courts where appeals go, with a solid
decision; or I'm fairly sure I've had heard of same.
So, it's a new, ground-breaking issue, just like my entire case is.
And, as I've mentioned before, MY case is most likely going to be
decided on First Amendment Rules as set forth by the Supreme Court.
Neither the Prosecution nor I nor my defense-team really want this
case side-tracked on something like "speedy trial" issues ... Though
we're both probably willing to argue such issues as and when they
arrive.
The whole idea of the case is to decide whether the stories I write
are "legal" for other people in other states with more restrictive and
anti-sex religious attitudes to read.
Of course, that likely won't decide the REAL issue of whether other
such "obscene" stories (as decided "obscene" by a religious-minded
jury in the US "Bible Belt") are "legal" for people to post on
web-pages and newsgroups in OTHER states like California, where they
can still be freely accessed by folks in Georgia and Tennessee.
Right now, the narrow issue is only whether MY particular stories meet
the "Miller Test" ... Something every one was written and posted with
this eventual challenge in mind.
Of course, if I LOSE, then Federal Prosecutors will be quite free to
charge darned near everybody else who has NOT written their stories
with such a challenge in mind.
OTOH, if I WIN, then defense-attorneys will argue that other stories
of a similar nature are similarly protected; while Prosecutors will
argue that they have to meet the same standards that my stories did.
AND ... I'll personally admit that many do not; though many will.
There are a LOT worse stories than mine; and of those, not many (to my
mind) qualify as "literature". On the other hand, many such stories
are BETTER than mind, and DO so-qualify.
At the very least, if I win, then it will get a lot stickier for
Federal Prosecutors to bring cases against similar stories to mine.
And (of course) if I lose, then it will get a lot easier.
That's why my case, being essentially ground-breaking in this issue,
is so important to Freedom-of-Speech and Freedom-of-the-Press issues.
It's downright SAD that the people who SHOULD have fought such a case
years, even decades earlier, the publishers, just folded up and gave
in without even a ghost of a fight. And THAT is what made me post
"HFD" in 114 very horrible parts. I figured that SOMEBODY had to
stand up and fight for our First Amendment Rights; and if nobody else
would, then as my Civic Duty I had to.
I didn't WANT to be the Sacrificial Goat; but just like I volunteered
to join the Marine Corps in 1960, I figured there are certain
obligations one has to FIGHT for the freedoms we all enjoy when
challenged. You may fight, you may lose, you might even die; but if
nobody ever stands up to be counted, then we ALL lose.
Sadly, nobody else ever seemed to be willing to fight this battle;
even though thousands, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands of people think
it SHOULD be fought. ;-{
But somebody has to be willing to stand up and fight, or everybody
loses. Up until Rosa Parks stood up and got arrested for not sitting
in the back-of-the-bus, everybody said, "Not ME! Let somebody ELSE do
it!" It's rough facing down a whole society.
It's far MORE rough standing up for freedom to speak up for far more
unpopular causes. It's bad enough trying to speak out against "Vice
Crime Laws" or the idiocy of our present "War on Drugs", where at
least a large percentage of people get the idea that such laws are not
only stupid but counter-productive.
Trying to get people to support the right to read stories like mine,
no matter HOW popular they are (and they ARE very popular!) is
incredibly difficult, even though they agree that such stories are
protected by the constitution. Nobody wants to admit publicly that
they enjoy reading such material.
Rather like the underground market for Porn before about 1960 or so.
Even admitting you did so could get you ostracized.
Or, how about admitting you were homosexual at the same time?
Would get you fired, your security-clearance revoked, and everybody
around you looking at you like a child-rapist would be now.
Even supporting the idea of "gay marriage" would have gotten you
disgust and abhorrence from neighbors and "friends" from the idea that
if you supported the idea of men marrying men, then you MUST be a
"queer" yourself!
Same here: If anybody even admits liking my stories publicly or
worse-yet publicly *supports* my right to post and publish them, then
they run the very real risk of people around them assuming that they
like to molest children and do worse things. At least a Public
Defender in this country can do so without people making such an
assumption.
(One of the worst civil-rights violations in other countries I've
heard of was not just the arrest of people for asking for freedom, but
the arrest and conviction of their *lawyers* for defending them!)
Nobody else here in the US of A wanted to face that accusation.
It was ONLY the fact that I've never molested a child in my life or
even looked at any for sex (my stories more being fantasies about
*being* a child *looking for sex*) that allowed me to take on the
challenge myself.
So ... I set myself up for and practically *invited* them to take a
swing at me. Fourteen plus years later, they finally did ... Long
AFTER I'd decided they never would.
Rather like a politician has to be squeaky-clean, without even an
arrest for speeding if hs/she wants to run for any decent Public
Office. I didn't, hadn't, and was so clean when I volunteered.
Even so, many people ASS-U-ME that I'd molest a child if I had the
opportunity. Funny though: Since I met my wife, SHE is the only
person in the world I've wanted sex with. Even now, though it's been
almost three years since we've had sex together, I'm not even tempted
to go looking for anybody else. Why look for mediocre, when you've
already had first-prize and there's still a chance of getting it
again?
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
|