It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

judge imposed no-lawyer trial ends with 20-years-to-life sentence

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
www.democratandchronicle.com...



A recalcitrant felon who was removed from his trial while defending himself — creating a trial with no defendant and no defense attorney present — was today sentenced to 20 years to life for a series of crimes.





A jury in November convicted Williams on multiple charges stemming from his attempts to pass off forged checks. Connell decided Williams had to represent himself at the trial after Williams filed what Connell said were a number of “frivolous” grievances against his past lawyers.




hopefully this is the right place for this thread, my apologies to the mods if it has to be moved




dont really know what to say about this, i am utterly shocked

i thought in the United States we were guaranteed a right to representation, and i thought we were guaranteed the option to have concerns against your representative


however this judge wont allow the defendant to have a lawyer

the judge makes him defend himself

then when the judge throws the defendant out of court, he proceeds in sentencing a man who has absolutely no representation and is not even present



this does not sound like the USA, this sounds very scary to hear it is taking place amongst all the other things going on today


many people are bashed for saying we are losing our rights, but to me, this right here is the ultimate proof on losing our rights




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
personally when it comes to a situation like this, to me it shouldnt matter what the person is on trial for, whether its murder or rape or even a speeding ticket, in this country, we are supposed to have the right to a fair trial


if you are not allowed representation during a trial, and not even allowed to be present, i think there is something horribly wrong


i am sure this is a matter that will be swept under the rug, but more people need to see what is taking place in our judicial system


we arent as free as we thought, and we definitely dont have all the rights we thought we had


its truly absurd because never have i ever heard a judge can force you to represent yourself, and then remove you from court and still hold a "fair hearing"

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Dramey]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dramey

however this judge wont allow the defendant to have a lawyer

the judge makes him defend himself

then when the judge throws the defendant out of court, he proceeds in sentencing a man who has absolutely no representation and is not even present



Here's the solution.

It would save the taxpayers lots of money.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I'd say he can easily get this over-turned. Well, if he can stop complaining about his free lawyers long enough anyway. Judges don't just toss you out of court on a whim, you have to be pretty disruptive for that to happen. But to continue the trial without bringing in a lawyer for him? That can't be legal.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

But to continue the trial without bringing in a lawyer for him? That can't be legal.


Why not?

I don't get it?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


its really scary because your picture is what seems our government is heading towards, things do not look good for america

especially after the new supreme court decision deciding there should be no limit on corporate funds for politicians

everything together seems to really be showing the average citizen is worthless to our "country"



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


he may have been disruptive, he may have made frivolous claims, he may be the worst man alive, but according to the fundamentals this nation was founded on, every man deserves the right to a fair trial so all of the above doesnt even matter in this situation, the guy was denied a fair trial


hopefully like you say it will be easy to overturn, but the problem here is that this situation exists to have to be overturned, we have many problems with our system today



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dramey

... things do not look good for america


everything together seems to really be showing the average citizen is worthless to our "country"


Ya think?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Jenna

But to continue the trial without bringing in a lawyer for him? That can't be legal.


Why not?

I don't get it?



i hope you are not being serious

but if you, it is illegal because everyone is entitled to representation, its why we have public defenders in the 1st place

the judge, took away his representation, forced him to represent himself, then threw him out of court and continued the case without anyone representing the defendant


you cant have a court case in america with no defendant



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Dramey

... things do not look good for america


everything together seems to really be showing the average citizen is worthless to our "country"


Ya think?



nope no longer do i think that, i now know it, especially like i said, with this situation, with the supreme court decision on top of everything else that has happened, there is no doubt in my mind


that to me is the real problem, they no longer have to be in the shadows with these things, they can do it right in front of our face, and theres nothing we can do about it



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dramey

you cant have a court case in america with no defendant


This is America the land of opportunity.

How much did the legal system make by finding the felon, hearing the case, convicting the felon and incarcerating him?

I'm telling you a bullet to the head would be cheaper by far.

Perhaps theres some money to be made in the appeal process?

Sounds like a serious civil lawsuit. It could cost the taxpayers millions, to try the appeal all the way to the supream court and pay the lawyers and felon for the gross misjustice and to reimburse the poor dupe for emotional pain and trauma.


Bullet.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Dramey

you cant have a court case in america with no defendant


This is America the land of opportunity.

How much did the legal system make by finding the felon, hearing the case, convicting the felon and incarcerating him?

I'm telling you a bullet to the head would be cheaper by far.

Perhaps theres some money to be made in the appeal process?



[edit on 22-1-2010 by In nothing we trust]



thats a true point, it is much cheaper and we have seen cost is the only thing that matters in this world, now we just need 6-7 billion bullets and we will be all set



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 


Yeah he deserves a fair trial, but it's his own fault he got thrown out and his fault he kept complaining about his free lawyers. Definitely doesn't make what the judge did right, but this guy isn't blameless in this situation.

I just don't understand why the judge didn't even have the decency to call for a recess until the guy got it through his skull that he can't disrupt the process. Or why he didn't get another attorney for him. Everyone has the right to representation in court during a criminal trial, and this judge denied this man his right. There's no way that's legal and the judge has to know the case will likely be over-turned. I'm thoroughly befuddled over the whole thing...



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 





Why not?

I don't get it?


Sixth Amendment:


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 where in 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.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
another thing ive been wondering about is how many people have this happen to them and slip through the cracks without getting a new trial or getting the corrupt trial overturned


it seems if we have heard about it once, it mustve happened again somewhere, there needs to be something in place to prevent such abuse



this guy might get his overturned, but how many people havent been able to due to any number of reasons, i wonder how often this may happen to the mentally disabled



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I understand and respect the arguement being made by some of you, but I have to disagree in this case.

"A recalcitrant felon who was removed from his trial while defending himself.."

Recalcitrant:
- resisting authority: stubbornly resisting the authority of another person or group
- hard to do or handle: difficult to deal with or operate
- stubborn opponent: somebody who stubbornly resists authority or control

The article states that the man had filed numerous "frivolous" grievances against his former lawyers. He was also being very disruptive and hindering the court room proceedings from occuring.
Basicly, the man was trying to stall the sentencing as much as he could. He was given ample opportunities to have legal representation in court. He was being disruptive and in contempt of the court room hearing and was taken away.

The judge recognized what the man was doing and after many attempts to rectify the situation, he had the man dismissed and carried on with the sentencing without him present.

The man has a criminal record that dates back more than 20 years and is currently serving a 20 to Life sentence for other crimes that he has committed.
A jury had already found the man guilty and convicted him for multiple criminal charges back in November.
The recent courtroom fiasco was the sentencing phase of the criminal trial.

Yes, the Constitution does give us the right to a fair trial with legal representation. And yes, the law does allow us to file grievances against that representation if we feel that we're being treated unfairly. But in this case, the judge was not wrong in what he decided to do.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
You have to wait and see that it sticks and nothing is done first.

Yes, it is wrong for them to do such a thing, and the judge is off his rocker. But now that the person is out of that judges court and so forth, he can get a lawyer and appeal the case.

The defendant could likely easily get a mistrial declared on it. That's all it is, a mistrial.

If nothing is done about it, then their is a serious problem and then you can say it is a reflection on what society has become. Til then, it's just 1 crazy judge.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Detailed Perfection
 


Contempt of court and other such things are separate charges and do not mean a thing in regards to the current case, nor does it allow a judge to overturn laws because of it.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I'm telling you a bullet to the head would be cheaper by far.


Fortunately the Bill of Rights provides freedoms that are NOT based on how expensive or cheap they might be.

You know what would be cheaper than hiring all the lawyers you'd need to override the Bill of Rights? Taking your own advice.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
I understand and respect the arguement being made by some of you, but I have to disagree in this case.

"A recalcitrant felon who was removed from his trial while defending himself.."

Recalcitrant:
- resisting authority: stubbornly resisting the authority of another person or group
- hard to do or handle: difficult to deal with or operate
- stubborn opponent: somebody who stubbornly resists authority or control

The article states that the man had filed numerous "frivolous" grievances against his former lawyers. He was also being very disruptive and hindering the court room proceedings from occuring.
Basicly, the man was trying to stall the sentencing as much as he could. He was given ample opportunities to have legal representation in court. He was being disruptive and in contempt of the court room hearing and was taken away.

The judge recognized what the man was doing and after many attempts to rectify the situation, he had the man dismissed and carried on with the sentencing without him present.

The man has a criminal record that dates back more than 20 years and is currently serving a 20 to Life sentence for other crimes that he has committed.
A jury had already found the man guilty and convicted him for multiple criminal charges back in November.
The recent courtroom fiasco was the sentencing phase of the criminal trial.

Yes, the Constitution does give us the right to a fair trial with legal representation. And yes, the law does allow us to file grievances against that representation if we feel that we're being treated unfairly. But in this case, the judge was not wrong in what he decided to do.




you talk about stalling the proceedings, well major corporations and politicians do that on a daily basis


the article mentions the frivolous claims, but whos to judge whats frivolous, it could have been a real concern, or the person could be mentally handicapped and wrongly felt it was a real concern, nonetheless who are we to judge, the man had a complaint against his lawyers, in america you are allowed to do so


in the persons defense in regards to him fighting authority, he was fighting authority,i would too, if i felt i was being wrongly held/tried/etc



any of us would, ill go out on a limb to say that you would be hard pressed to find an ats member who wouldnt fight authority if they thought they were being screwed in some way


and again one of the last points to make, the person in question could be mentally handicapped


there should be something to prevent this situation, what that is, i dont know, but it should be looked into

sure that is not the case here, but this case shows how there is potential for serious abuse


our nation was created to keep the power from being too concentrated with one person, im sure the founding members never wanted a judge to be able to do what took place in this situation


there should have been something in place to guarantee our rights




additionally yes it was in the sentencing phase, but that is still legally important and something that still requires representation, this situation alone proves that



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join