Calling our legal scholars - CS&S and US Constitution - 6th Am.

[MacNit]

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Does the above apply to CS&S? Has this become the theater of the absurd? At what point does the State say - "enough is enough: and drop these ridiculous charges? What is the background of any of these individuals that says that they could even conceive of such a crime?

 

[demlion]

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Does the above apply to CS&S? Has this become the theater of the absurd? At what point does the State say - "enough is enough: and drop these ridiculous charges? What is the background of any of these individuals that says that they could even conceive of such a crime?

The short answer is that this right is dependent upon the accused not requesting that the matter be continued, and insisting on a speedy trial at every turn. CSS have not done that. I do not think it is an issue.

 

[Obliviax]

The short answer is that this right is dependent upon the accused not requesting that the matter be continued, and insisting on a speedy trial at every turn. CSS have not done that. I do not think it is an issue.

And, to your point Dem, it is odd that CS&S have delayed things. Now, it would appear that they've had several questionable rulings against them regarding statute of limitation and representation (Baldwin) to name just two. But even at that, it would appear that CS&S and concerned. (which is unsettling)

Now you add in the political repercussions and you have a real mess.

The entire thing doesn't pass the smell test. Add in this mess to the secrecy of the BOT, Gov, TSM and so much more and you've got to come to the conclusion that we've just seen the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Ranger Dan]

Anyone who believes that there is no chance that C, S, & S were involved in what could be called a coverup has his/her head in the sand or is wearing coke bottle thick blue and white glasses. I'm not saying that they are guilty. I'm saying that there needs to be a trial and the truth needs to come out.

 

[MoyerJones]

I agree with DemLion.

I tend to be of the opinion that it was a smart strategic decision by the Defendants to delay, delay, and delay. (For instance, the appellate docket indicates that Spanier motioned (and was denied) to stay the appellate briefing schedule.)

Moving for a speedy trial three or four years ago could have been dangerous because the public and political outrage was much greater. And from a defense perspective, you have no idea what new witnesses or evidence will be revealed post-Presentment or post-Sandusky-verdict.

One question I have pondered more recently is how CS&S were permitted to appeal the Baldwin ruling. This is a more technical question. But in my opinion, it would seem to me that the Baldwin ruling is interlocutory and un-appeal-able until AFTER the trial. In other words, Baldwin's testimony, etc., comes in. CS&S go to trial, and then if they lose, they can appeal, in part, on the grounds that they are arguing right now. Any thoughts?