Post by abram on Mar 10, 2011 23:08:20 GMT -5
The sixth amendment specifies everyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a speedy trial. Two years and waiting is not speedy. Jordan is not an adult, past juveniles sentenced to LWOP are appealing to the supreme court (8th & 14th amendment) Detroit lawsuit ( www.aclu.org/human-rights-racial-justice/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-life-without-parole-michigan-juveniles ) and key evidence may have been coerced from a seven year old. Thus we have a youth with suspect testimony against a youth and the Detroit lawsuit which may bring all youth back into the Juvenile System, where they belong. So who is really to blame for the delays in Jordan's trial – the defence lawyers for their attempt to have a trial where it belongs or the prosecution for their attempt to have a trial where it doesn't belong?
Is there a case here for dismissal?
In the case of the fourth amendment and Jordan's interrogation by police and school personal, can we compare it to what is going on in the case of S.G.( www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/6586-parents-under-siege-in-global-battle-against-state-control-of-children )? A case of a nine year old girl (S.G.), taken from class, interrogated for two hours by police and social workers without parental consent.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals;
“Once the police have initiated a criminal investigation into alleged abuse in the home, responsible officials must provide procedural protections appropriate to the criminal context. At least where there is, as here, direct involvement of law enforcement in an in-school seizure and interrogation of a suspected child abuse victim, we simply cannot say, as a matter of law, that she was seized for some “special need[,] beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 74 n.7.”
Article author; “In short, applying the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements, the decision to seize and interrogate S.G. in the absence of a warrant, a court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent was unconstitutional.”
article www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/6634-supreme-ct-to-rule-on-parental-notification-rights-in-cases-of-interrogation-at-school
S.G. was not questioned as a suspect but as a witness. When Jordan was questioned he was also questioned as a witness – the police said so much in court when defending themselves for denying Jordan his rights. Isn't this a contradiction and a violation of the fourteenth amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So far the state may have violated the 4th, 5th, 6th & 14th amendment’s of the U.S. Constitution.
The state has barely enough evidence to go to trial.
In all probability they got the wrong person.
Legal exigent;
www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm
Is there a case here for dismissal?
In the case of the fourth amendment and Jordan's interrogation by police and school personal, can we compare it to what is going on in the case of S.G.( www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/6586-parents-under-siege-in-global-battle-against-state-control-of-children )? A case of a nine year old girl (S.G.), taken from class, interrogated for two hours by police and social workers without parental consent.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals;
“Once the police have initiated a criminal investigation into alleged abuse in the home, responsible officials must provide procedural protections appropriate to the criminal context. At least where there is, as here, direct involvement of law enforcement in an in-school seizure and interrogation of a suspected child abuse victim, we simply cannot say, as a matter of law, that she was seized for some “special need[,] beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 74 n.7.”
Article author; “In short, applying the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements, the decision to seize and interrogate S.G. in the absence of a warrant, a court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent was unconstitutional.”
article www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/6634-supreme-ct-to-rule-on-parental-notification-rights-in-cases-of-interrogation-at-school
S.G. was not questioned as a suspect but as a witness. When Jordan was questioned he was also questioned as a witness – the police said so much in court when defending themselves for denying Jordan his rights. Isn't this a contradiction and a violation of the fourteenth amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So far the state may have violated the 4th, 5th, 6th & 14th amendment’s of the U.S. Constitution.
The state has barely enough evidence to go to trial.
In all probability they got the wrong person.
Legal exigent;
www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm
