HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #521  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 6:35 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
This doesn't really count because the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is Federal,



but these guys are seriously lame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #522  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 7:11 AM
acw007's Avatar
acw007 acw007 is offline
Arachnid Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fort Collins
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Front_Range_Guy View Post
This report by KOAA-TV details John Hickenloopers ties to Colorado Springs, and how he saved a downtown landmark from the wrecking ball. It also has video of Hickenlooper from 20 years ago.

LINK
Hick gets around. He founded CooperSmith's Pub & Brewing here in Fort Collins in 1989.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #523  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 1:40 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
but these guys are seriously lame.
Huh? The 10th Circuit judges are lame? What brought that on?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #524  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 3:13 PM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Some interesting news as the Democrats elected State Rep. Sal Pace from Pueblo as the house minority leader. Along with Lt. Governor Joe Garcia Pueblo sill has a HUGE influence in state politics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #525  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 6:12 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Huh? The 10th Circuit judges are lame? What brought that on?
This comes in response to their most recent antics.

Quote:
Elizabeth Smart kidnapping trial postponed
'I'm very unhappy about this,' judge says
Published: Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010 10:51 p.m. MDT

By Pat Reavy and Dennis Romboy, Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY — Like a scene from a Hollywood movie, the trial of Brian David Mitchell came to a dramatic halt Thursday when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay while it again considers moving the trial from Utah.

Just a few minutes into defense attorney Parker Douglas' opening statements before a 12-member jury with two alternates and after prosecutors had already delivered their 45-minute opening arguments, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball stopped the proceedings and called the attorneys together for an emergency conference.

After the conference was over, he announced the 10th Circuit's decision and dismissed the jury for the day.

"A legal issue has arisen," he said. "Obviously I'm very unhappy about this, but I have to follow what the 10th Circuit told me. For today, we're in recess, and I'm sorry."

The judge told the jury they may not return to the courtroom until next week.

Thursday afternoon, the 10th Circuit asked prosecutors and defense attorneys to file briefs before the end of the day. The attorneys were asked to "inform the court whether a jury has in fact been empaneled; and if a jury has been empaneled, what each party's position is on whether the petition for (a change of venue) is moot."

The decision to stay the trial came after a nine-man, five-woman jury (including two alternates) was officially seated Thursday morning. The government had already delivered its opening arguments and the defense was just beginning theirs.

University of Utah law professor and former federal judge Paul Cassell called Thursday's events extraordinary.

"I've never heard of a case like that," he told the Deseret News. "It's extraordinary they would halt a trial literally mid-sentence."

Because a jury has already been empaneled, case law becomes very complicated at this point, Cassell said. If the 10th Circuit concurs with the defense that a change of venue is needed, the defense could possibly argue a double jeopardy violation has been committed, he said.

Filing a petition to the 10th Circuit asking to move the trial at this point in the process is also highly unusual, Cassell said.

The fact that double jeopardy might be involved could influence the 10th Circuit's opinion, Cassell said, which is why they asked whether the jury was already empaneled. However, he noted it was also surprising the appellate court intervened with a district court's decision at this point to issue a stay.

"The level of intrusion into the district court is unprecedented in recent years in Salt Lake City," he said.

When Kimball announced the trial had to be temporarily stopped, there was an obvious look of frustration on the faces of Elizabeth Smart and her father, Ed Smart, who were sitting in the front row of the courtroom along with Elizabeth's mother, Lois, and her younger sister, Mary Katherine. The faces of Elizabeth and Ed appeared to be a combination of disappointment and frustration, combined with concern and uneasiness about what would happen next. Elizabeth walked down the courthouse hallway to the elevator with her sister holding her arm.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...oned.html?pg=1

This should have been done in the appeal after the trial or the D 10 should have acted sooner. Either way, this will be an embarrassment for them at a national level; it's making national news this morning.

And it sets a really bad precedent for the D 10 to do this during the actual trial. It also shows they don't have confidence in the Utah Federal Court to go through a jury selection process and they don't respect the people of Utah (the implication is that no one in the entire state could be a fair juror). It would have been bad enough to do this before the trial got started as we are used to being manhandeled by these people, but to do it mid-trial?!

I love that courthouse building's style in Denver, but the D 10 court is totally lame. Metropolitan Utah does not have warm fuzzies towards them, especially when they assert that the most white collar state by percentage of population in the entire District cannot be competent in finding a jury.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #526  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 6:40 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
You see this is some sort of slight against Utah? That isn't what I take at all from the article you linked.

Here's how I read it...

- Defense attorneys petition for change of venue (sometime earlier).
- 10th Circuit rejects petition, ruling it is premature (the jury hasn't yet been empaneled, so whatever they are considering in their venue review can't be decided yet). But they would be open to further review once a jury is selected.
- Wednesday PM, after the jury is selected, defense attorneys motion for a temporary stay pending 10th Circuit review. District judge denies motion.
- Wednesday late-PM, defense attorneys file petition directly to 10th Circuit.
- Thursday AM, 10th Circuit grants petition.

The only issue here that makes it unusual is that the District Court went ahead and started trial on Thursday morning.

Why wouldn't the District Court wait 4 hours until the Appeals Ct has time to rule on the petition? I'm not sure...but it sure seems prudent to review the venue (and voir dire) now, rather than do it all over on appeal. Saves time, saves money.

Beyond that, there is case law that will be reviewed by the Appeals Court to decide whether Utah is the proper venue...

It isn't like a federal appellate review is somehow prejudicial against your city or state? That's a fairly absurd claim. Manhandling? The appellate court saw something that made them think the proper venue couldn't be decided before trial (which was the essence of their first petition rejection).

People get annoyed with court rulings all the time. But it's not everyday I see somebody post nastiness about a procedural issue... what am I missing here? The attorneys' comments - "bad timing" and "unfortunate" seem spot on to me. Not sure I see judicial misconduct or anything... Again, what am I missing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #527  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 7:09 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
You see this is some sort of slight against Utah? That isn't what I take at all from the article you linked.

Here's how I read it...

- Defense attorneys petition for change of venue (sometime earlier).
- 10th Circuit rejects petition, ruling it is premature (the jury hasn't yet been empaneled, so whatever they are considering in their venue review can't be decided yet). But they would be open to further review once a jury is selected.
- Wednesday PM, after the jury is selected, defense attorneys motion for a temporary stay pending 10th Circuit review. District judge denies motion.
- Wednesday late-PM, defense attorneys file petition directly to 10th Circuit.
- Thursday AM, 10th Circuit grants petition.

The only issue here that makes it unusual is that the District Court went ahead and started trial on Thursday morning.
This isn't unusual. They already shot down the petition once before. You assert that petitions are like passengers on public buses and that higher courts have to stop and pick everyone up. There are plenty of times where higher courts consider petitions ridiculous and deny them up front; ones that assert things like, and entire state of almost 3 million people can produce no fair jurors for a trial. Give me a break. If you can't see how that would piss someone off then you have no ability to feel sympathy.

Quote:
Why wouldn't the District Court wait 4 hours until the Appeals Ct has time to rule on the petition? I'm not sure...but it sure seem prudent to review the venue (and voir dire) now, rather than do it all over on appeal. Saves time, saves money.
Because it was one of the many delay tactics employed in this trail. What year is it again, 2010 (getting closer to 2011)? And this all went down in 2003...ridiculousness. The last major wait was for the insanity plea on the part of the defense. Whatever sentence is issued will be appealed anyway, so it doesn't really matter. They should have just waited until the end of the trial.

Quote:
Beyond that, there is case law that will be reviewed by the Appeals Court to decide whether Utah is the proper venue...

It isn't like a federal appellate review is somehow prejudicial against your city or state? That's a fairly absurd claim. Manhandling? The appellate court saw something that made them think the proper venue couldn't be decided before trial (which was the essence of their first petition rejection).
LOL. Absurd claim. Look I'm not knocking Denver because they have hack Federal Judges living in their midst. But if you think that it is an absurd claim that a judge might not be good at his job (being fair), then you must be implying that they are perfect.



The fact is, they are put in by Presidents and we have to wait until they retire or die regardless of whether they are good or not.

Quote:
People get annoyed with court rulings all the time. But it's not everyday I see somebody post nastiness about a procedural issue... what am I missing here? The attorneys' comments - "bad timing" and "unfortunate" seem spot on to me. Not sure I see judicial misconduct or anything... Again, what am I missing?
It's sloppy work on the part of the D 10 plain and simple. You are missing the fact that Federal District Court gave credence to a claim that a state cannot produce a non biased jury.

I would also invite you to study the Legacy Highway debacle which ended up being a prime case of the D 10 Court manhandling Utah.

Last edited by s.p.hansen; Nov 5, 2010 at 8:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #528  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 8:35 PM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Task force advises higher ed tax fund

Did you guys see this report about higher education funding? Personally I hope to see some kind of proposal on next years ballot as I know higher ed needs A LOT more funding.

Jane Rawlings, assistant publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain said:

‘This is really important not just for the economic development, but the economic maintenance of our state.’



This is from the Pueblo Chieftain (but I am sure its in all the main papers):



GOLDEN — A group tasked with identifying the challenges facing Colorado’s colleges and proposing solutions on Thursday recommended a statewide ballot question in November 2011 for a tax to fund higher education.

The Higher Education Strategic Planning Task Force, seated almost a year ago by Gov. Bill Ritter, delivered its report to Ritter on Thursday and said its foremost worry is that funding for colleges is insufficient to continue the present level of service they provide.

“Citizens of Colorado need to decide what kind of higher education system they want and what they’re willing to pay for it,” said Jim Lyons, co-chairman of the task force, during a presentation of the plan to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education at the Colorado School of Mines.

“Our view is this ought to be on the ballot next November,” Lyons said. “We can’t wait.”

The group identified $760 million as the minimum amount of state funding needed by higher education to provide the current level of service, which would mean losing ground in that regard as time passes.

In Ritter’s proposed budget, announced Tuesday, $555 million is earmarked for higher education during fiscal year 2011-12. That’s the same amount the Legislature appropriated this year, and about $100 million in financial aid, but absent is the $89 million in federal stimulus money that propped up higher education this year for the last foreseeable time.

Any less than the present level of funding would have dire consequences, according to the report.

“Schools and programs may either close or be privatized, with no state support,” if the accelerated erosion of funding continues as it has during the past decade, according to the report. “Access will be limited.”

In order to move Colorado from second-last in the nation in its investment in higher education to the top one-third of the nation, the sustained funding level would need to reach $1.5 billion annually, according to the report

Potential funding remedies identified in the report include restoring the income tax level from 4.63 percent to 5 percent and the sales tax level from 2.9 percent to 3 percent to raise $445 million; expanding sales tax to specific services to generate $550 million; implementing a 1 percent surcharge on oil and gas extraction to raise $15 million; implementing a mill levy of 4 statewide to raise $350 million; or imposing the same mill levy just in counties where an institution of higher education is located to gain $240 million.

The link: http://www.chieftain.com/article_b97...cc4c002e0.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #529  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 8:40 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
There are plenty of times where higher courts consider petitions ridiculous and deny them up front; ones that assert things like, and entire state of almost 3 million people can produce no fair jurors for a trial. Give me a break. If you can't see how that would piss someone off then you have no ability to feel sympathy.
Okay, two things here.
1. Trials are not about sympathy, they are about applying the law fairly.
2. The issue is not whether a state can produce fair jurors. The issue is whether the judicial process can find unbiased jurors from that pool. Venue changes happen all the time. The issue is the defendant's constitutional rights, not Utah's ego. If it's been lingering for 7 years, presumably with a lot of press, then maybe it is time to move it someplace else. Your reaction to a minor procedural delay, if typical of Utahans, and typical of who's getting pulled for the jury pool, seems to indicate that a venue change might not be unreasonable at all. What does it hurt to move a trial to, say, Montana? The court will consider distance, witness availability, etc. What it will not consider is your ego. That's the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
They already shot down the petition once before. You assert that petitions are like passengers on public buses and that higher courts have to stop and pick everyone up. There are plenty of times where higher courts consider petitions ridiculous and deny them up front;
They accept or deny petitions based on the issues presented in the briefs, nothing more, nothing less. And you're wrong to say the "shot it down once before." From what that article said, they denied it because it was too early, not because the appellate court saw no issues of law to consider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Because it was one of the many delay tactics employed in this trail. What year is it again, 2010 (getting closer to 2011)? And this all went down in 2003...ridiculousness. The last major wait was for the insanity plea on the part of the defense. This is going to be appealed anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
A couple more points.

1. Delays happen. Are they unreasonable here? I have no idea, it's possible the District Court isn't managing things as tightly as it could. Many things affect the pace of trial (caseloads chief among them). If you don't like the law, run for office and change it. But don't forget, the constitutional rights of a defendant are inviolable. If you get to be president someday, perhaps start by filling the enormous backlog of judicial vacancies in the federal courts (abrogating that particular presidential responsibility is a real area of bipartisan consensus if there ever was one).
2. Maybe it will be appealed. But if the 10th Circuit saw an issue of law, isn't it better to address it now? That way, after a long and expensive trial, when it's appealed again, the appellate court can, as you put it, "shoot it down" [quickly].

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Look I'm not knocking Denver because they have hack Federal Judges living in their midst. But if you think that it is an absurd claim that a judge might not be good at his job (being fair), then you must be implying that they are perfect.

I would also invite you to study the Legacy Highway debacle which ended up being a prime case of the D 10 Court manhandling Utah.
So you are suggesting that the responsible course of action for the Circuit Court (a group of judges, by the way, not one) is to not review a petition for peremptory appeal, sight unseen?

Not only would that be irresponsible, but it would certainly invite later appeal, possibly be unconstitutional, and is just, frankly, impossible. A court has to at least look at a petition that comes across its desk. They hadn't already ruled on this point (from what the article said, it was quite the opposite, they have invited further review), so the petition wasn't barred.

You want the clerk to just toss out the mail without so much as showing it to a judge? They received a petition overnight on Wednesday, and the stay was in place before lunch on Thursday. That's fast.

What exactly are you asking the court to do?

I'm not even going to address this idea you have that a federal appellate court is somehow anti-Utah. The whole purpose of federal courts is stand above "home-towning" in state courts. It can't be political - the current judges include nomination from every president going back to... at least Reagan. If anything there's a conservative majority, but I hardly think that's relevant. And few (if any?) of the judges are local. Circuit judges (almost all ivy-leaguers) come from all over the country. Your contention just doesn't make sense.

I get the impression that you don't have a very firm grasp of the legal system? I'm certainly no expert, either, but I have to ask, what do you do?


edit: I am looking at your Legacy Highway case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first thing that stands out - the appellant (plaintiff) in that case was the City of Salt Lake? So a Utah city files an appeal in a federal court to stop a project (which presumably you support) based on federal law. The Utah DOT jumps in on the side of the appellees (defendants), which include a number of federal agencies. And you don't like the outcome, so you blame the court? Seems like it was an intra-Utah dispute. I guess it was a lose-lose for the court; they were going to be Utah-haters no matter how they ruled!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #530  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 9:23 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Okay, two things here.
1. Trials are not about sympathy, they are about applying the law fairly.
2. The issue is not whether a state can produce fair jurors. The issue is whether the judicial process can find unbiased jurors from that pool. Venue changes happen all the time. The issue is the defendant's constitutional rights, not Utah's ego. If it's been lingering for 7 years, presumably with a lot of press, then maybe it is time to move it someplace else. Your reaction to a minor procedural delay, if typical of Utahans, and typical of who's getting pulled for the jury pool, seems to indicate that a venue change might not be unreasonable at all. What does it hurt to move a trial to, say, Montana? The court will consider distance, witness availability, etc. What it will not consider is your ego. That's the law.
Maybe your reading and comprehension skills are shaky today. Where did I assert that the trial should be about sympathy? Seriously, that kind of misread is alarming. You were wondering why I was all hot and bothered about the whole situation and then said such reactions were absurd. And I said that you must have no sympathy for us in Utah if you don't think it is unreasonable for a Higher Court to consider a claim that no one in Utah can be deemed a fair juror. Please address that for me.

Just for emphasis:
Quote:
The issue is whether the judicial process can find unbiased jurors from that pool.
Really, and that is why we need to go to another state for this. So Let me get this straight. They selected a cross section of the metro area for 220 jurors and made them go through tons of screening and the Federal Judge in Utah oversaw the process.

The complaint is that in Utah a fair jury could not be found because of the media saturation and locality. Also, it implies that the judge did not do his job right in Utah in adequately overseeing the selection of the jury.

So states with a lot of media coverage concerning a local matter are compromised in their ability to be fair? Do you not see how this sets a bad precedent?

That we are all so emotionally compromised that we cannot view a crime that happened in our state logically?

Do you really think that kind of tradition taking hold in the system will save money!

Quote:
They accept or deny petitions based on the issues presented in the briefs, nothing more, nothing less. And you're wrong to say the "shot it down once before." From what that article said, they denied it because it was too early, not because the appellate court saw no issues of law to consider.
I admit they "shot it down" was a dramatic word with the same meaning. They denied it because a second claim came in from the defense the night before (which would have been too little to late in a normal scenario).

Quote:
A couple more points.

1. Delays happen. Are they unreasonable here? I have no idea, it's possible the District Court isn't managing things as tightly as it could. Many things affect the pace of trial (caseloads chief among them). If you don't like the law, run for office and change it. But don't forget, the constitutional rights of a defendant are inviolable. If you get to be president someday, perhaps start by filling the enormous backlog of judicial vacancies in the federal courts (abrogating that particular presidential responsibility is a real area of bipartisan consensus if there ever was one).
2. Maybe it will be appealed. But if the 10th Circuit saw an issue of law, isn't it better to address it now? That way, after a long and expensive trial, when it's appealed again, the appellate court can, as you put it, "shoot it down" [quickly].
I really do appreciate the condescending line for me to remember the constitution. "Oh ya, I forgot we had one of those, thanks blunt q."

There are some traditions of respect once a trial gets started that shouldn't be undercut to slow down the appeal process. If you really wanted to take that idea and apply it to other cases it would change the whole system. That is why I say it starts a bad precedent in the system.

Quote:
So you are suggesting that the responsible course of action for the Circuit Court (a group of judges, by the way, not one) is to not review a petition for peremptory appeal, sight unseen?
They did review the petition and decided and made the decision to stop the trial and look at the evidence. They could have easily reviewed the petition and either considered it could be valid and up for investigation after the trial was finished, or considered it invalid and let the trial continue as well. Both not requiring them them to stop the trial to have the case put before them which by the way was shot down today and the trial will resume in Utah on Monday.

Quote:
Not only would that be irresponsible, but it would certainly invite later appeal, possibly be unconstitutional, and is just, frankly, impossible. A court has to at least look at a petition that comes across its desk. They hadn't already ruled on this point (from what the article said, it was quite the opposite, they have invited further review), so the petition wasn't barred.
There is a difference between looking and investigating. They have to look at every claim, but the don't have to say it is legitimate and requires investigation.

Quote:
You want the clerk to just toss out the mail without so much as showing it to a judge? They received a petition overnight on Wednesday, and the stay was in place before lunch on Thursday. That's fast.
It's fast on the District's part, but not necessary.

Quote:
What exactly are you asking the court to do?
To assume that there are rational people living in Utah who love and live by the constitution. And that we have legitimate judges.

Quote:
I'm not even going to address this idea you have that a federal appellate court is somehow anti-Utah. The whole purpose of federal courts is stand above "home-towning" in state courts. It can't be political - the current judges include nomination from every president going back to... at least Reagan. If anything there's a conservative majority, but I hardly think that's relevant. And few (if any?) of the judges are local. Circuit judges (almost all ivy-leaguers) come from all over the country. Your contention just doesn't make sense.
If you aren't even going to address it then I'm not interested in having any more dialog with you on this, because that is my assertion. And again with your reading skills, I did not say these people are from Colorado, only that they live there.

Quote:
I get the impression that you don't have a very firm grasp of the legal system? I'm certainly no expert, either, but I have to ask, what do you do?
And it's my impression that you don't engage people well in a dialog. I'm a student at the U of U in Philosophy and Political Science.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #531  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 10:02 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
And I said that you must have no sympathy for us in Utah if you don't think it is unreasonable for a Higher Court to consider a claim that no one in Utah can be deemed a fair juror. Please address that for me.

[...]

Really, and that is why we need to go to another state for this. So Let me get this straight. They selected a cross section of the metro area for 220 jurors and made them go through tons of screening and the Federal Judge in Utah oversaw the process.

The complaint is that in Utah a fair jury could not be found because of the media saturation and locality. Also, it implies that the judge did not do his job right in Utah in adequately overseeing the selection of the jury.
This is what the petition was about, yes - did the judge do his job? That's what appellate courts do - they ensure the district courts do their jobs. If you dump the emotion, there is existing law and procedure on this. If the judge follows it, there is minimal cause for concern and little delay. Nobody is saying the people of Utah are incapable of serving on a jury, so long as the process can identify jurors who are not compromised (again, a legal concept, well defined by existing law).

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
So states with a lot of media coverage concerning a local matter are compromised in their ability to be fair? Do you not see how this sets a bad precedent?
It doesn't set a bad precedent at all. This isn't a new problem - Utah is not the lucky venue to host the federal courts' first-ever high profile case. And there is already ample case law on the subject. This is important - the District Court doesn't set precedent, it follows precedent. All the more reason to defer to the Circuit Court now, rather than later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
There are some traditions of respect once a trial gets started that shouldn't be undercut to slow down the appeal process. If you really wanted to take that idea and apply it to other cases it would change the whole system. That is why I say it starts a bad precedent in the system.
Really, What traditions are those? I don't remember anything the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure about a tradition of non-interruption. Nothing that happened here changed the system. You should become more familiar with the system, then we can have this discussion. I'll check, in the meantime, do some research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
which by the way was shot down today and the trial will resume in Utah on Monday.
[...]
There is a difference between looking and investigating. They have to look at every claim, but the don't have to say it is legitimate and requires investigation.
Excellent, so the system worked!

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
To assume that there are rational people living in Utah who love and live by the constitution. And that we have legitimate judges.
Again, you misunderstand the role of the federal judiciary. That district judge is no more Utah's than the 10th circuit judges are Colorado's or the Supreme Court is Washington's. In fact, the entire appeal of the federal courts is the ability, when confronted by a passionate and potentially biased local populace, to appeal to an impartial court sitting farther away. So I suppose, by its nature, the federal court system is raising its nose at local folks everywhere, not just Utah. But that's exactly why the founders created it; there is no home team advantage in a federal courtroom.

(I also assume it's federal law, not Utah state law, this defendant is being prosecuted under. If that's true, the constitution doesn't care if its jurors and judge come from Utah, Mississippi, or Maine. So again, your passions are misplaced.)

Your comments about federal judges being essentially untouchable isn't really accurate, either. You always have three options:

1. if a law is being broken, a federal judge can always be impeached.
2. if the law is being applied, but you don't agree with it, you have to turn to the political process; that's not really a criticism of the judiciary. (I suspect your issues with the "Legacy Highway debacle" fall here).
3. if the law is not be applied, or is being applied improperly, you can always appeal.

There are really only 9 people in the entire country who are above reproach. And none of them sit in Denver.

As for my inability to read, comprehend, etc. etc.... let's continue this discussion after you pass the Utah bar.

edit: thank you for reminding me why I never want to teach procedure. eww.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #532  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 12:03 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
As for my inability to read, comprehend, etc. etc.... let's continue this discussion after you pass the Utah bar.

edit: thank you for reminding me why I never want to teach procedure. eww.
Being blunt is an admirable trait. But you aren't blunt. Your approach is to split an issue into many different arguments and obliviously dodge the main ones. And on top of that continue to project ignorance and emotion onto your opponent (being me, the supposedly unconstitutional emotional train wreck).

And I am willing to believe based on our very meaningful exchange over the internet, in this thread, that you have an extensive amount of experience in this area. That's great and I do think you have some valid points.

But you really cheapen those with your repeated reminders for me to not be emotional about this and to appeal to the constitution. I sincerely hope you don't teach procedure because you cite zero references (other than your vast storehouse of just knowing it to be the case), justify half your arguments with "we need to go with the founding fathers and constitution" (who am I talking to, Christine O’Donnell? ) and you flat out say that you are not even willing to engage me on an issue of the D 10 court being biased or acting poorly (just my luck running into a professional D 10 apologist).

I would honestly like to know:

1. How much of a precedent is there for any higher court to stop a trial when it gets to the point of actually being in session to investigate the slected jury? Please give me some examples.

2. Do you, personally, think it is ever necessary to hold a federal trial outside of the state where the crime took place in order to find a less biased jury? Why or why not?

That's all. Two simple topics for an argument. I would prefer to learn something out of all of this instead of just survive a war of attrition where the arguments keep sprawling out until we are debating the entire system (which you obviously have the upper hand on).

Last edited by s.p.hansen; Nov 6, 2010 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #533  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 1:51 AM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
I call troll. If you're going to have a discussion, lay off the rude attitude and personal attacks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #534  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 2:03 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Being blunt is an admirable trait. But you aren't blunt. Your approach is to split an issue into many different arguments and obliviously dodge the main ones. And on top of that continue to project ignorance and emotion onto your opponent (being me, the supposedly unconstitutional emotional train wreck).

And I am willing to believe based on our very meaningful exchange over the internet, in this thread, that you have an extensive amount of experience in this area. That's great and I do think you have some valid points.

But you really cheapen those with your repeated reminders for me to not be emotional about this and to appeal to the constitution. I sincerely hope you don't teach procedure because you cite zero references (other than your vast storehouse of just knowing it to be the case), justify half your arguments with "we need to go with the founding fathers and constitution" (who am I talking to, Christine O’Donnell? ) and you flat out say that you are not even willing to engage me on an issue of the D 10 court being biased or acting poorly (just my luck running into a professional D 10 apologist).

I would honestly like to know:

1. How much of a precedent is there for any higher court to stop a trial when it gets to the point of actually being in session to investigate the slected jury? Please give me some examples.

2. Do you, personally, think it is ever necessary to hold a federal trial outside of the state where the crime took place in order to find a less biased jury? Why or why not?

That's all. Two simple topics for an argument. I would prefer to learn something out of all of this instead of just survive a war of attrition where the arguments keep sprawling out until we are debating the entire system (which you obviously have the upper hand on).
1. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(d), Time to File a Motion to Transfer. -
A motion to transfer may be made at or before arraignment or at any other time the court or these rules prescribe.

Is it unusual for a motion to be made mid-trial, sure. But this isn't even the most extreme case possible and allowable under the rules, as the trial had just started. The fault really lies with the District Court for proceeding while a petition to the Court of Appeals was pending (assuming the Judge was aware).

2. Absolutely yes. First example that comes to mind - Timothy McVeigh. The District Court for Oklahoma transferred the case to Colorado for trial. Passions were too high in Oklahoma (understandably so) to seat an impartial jury there.

Why is sort of irrelevant. The law clearly contemplates cases when transfer might be necessary. Rule 21(a) - Upon the defendant's motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.


I apologize for any typos, I'm on my phone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #535  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 2:17 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt View Post
I call troll. If you're going to have a discussion, lay off the rude attitude and personal attacks.
This conversation has been rude both ways.

I am now completely satisfied by blunt_q's responses to my main points of discomfort with the hold that the D 10 put on the Elizabeth Smart trial.

And don't worry, normally I don't entangle in Colorado politics (and this actually had nothing to do with Colorado either).

Last edited by s.p.hansen; Nov 6, 2010 at 2:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #536  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 2:21 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
1. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(d), Time to File a Motion to Transfer. -
A motion to transfer may be made at or before arraignment or at any other time the court or these rules prescribe.

Is it unusual for a motion to be made mid-trial, sure. But this isn't even the most extreme case possible and allowable under the rules, as the trial had just started. The fault really lies with the District Court for proceeding while a petition to the Court of Appeals was pending (assuming the Judge was aware).

2. Absolutely yes. First example that comes to mind - Timothy McVeigh. The District Court for Oklahoma transferred the case to Colorado for trial. Passions were too high in Oklahoma (understandably so) to seat an impartial jury there.

Why is sort of irrelevant. The law clearly contemplates cases when transfer might be necessary. Rule 21(a) - Upon the defendant's motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.

I apologize for any typos, I'm on my phone.
OK, I'm satisfied. I withdraw my complaint against the court concerning the Elizabeth Smart trial.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #537  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 3:10 AM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
WOW. No one should complain about my little rants after that mind numbing one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #538  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 5:23 AM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
WOW. No one should complain about my little rants after that mind numbing one.
Yeah, that was one reason why I resent the image of Dr's being arrogant. I hadn't even started reading the conversation before I felt like my computer was looking down on me.

I love how someone's well reasoned, well organized and considerate explanations amount to a huge pile of crap.. but once you quote 25 words from some book somewhere that settles everything.

I need to publish a book that just has random lines like

"you're dumb"
"I'm completely correct in this and you should be embarrassed by your nonsense"
ETC.

Then whenever I take 2 or so hours to write out a well reasoned response to something and get attacked for it I'll just say: according to Waggonner in 2011 "you're dumb"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #539  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 5:35 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
Yeah, that was one reason why I resent the image of Dr's being arrogant. I hadn't even started reading the conversation before I felt like my computer was looking down on me.
My bad... I tried. Frustrated becomes condescending with me real quickly, I acknowledge that. But at least I found the right 25 words!

And doctors are arrogant. Haven't you ever seen House? We get William Shatner, you guys get House. Seems fair!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #540  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 5:47 AM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
My bad... I tried. Frustrated becomes condescending with me real quickly, I acknowledge that. But at least I found the right 25 words!

And doctors are arrogant. Haven't you ever seen House? We get William Shatner, you guys get House. Seems fair!
William Shatner = House??? Are you kidding! you guys totally win that one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:04 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.