Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen
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
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
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
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!