No Mas, Prosecution Says On Day Of Trial | Words uttered famously by Robero Duran years ago in his infamous fight with Sugar Ray Leonard, No mas Duran failed to answer the bell. Other great fighters have failed to answer the bell as well, eg, Sonny Liston and Max Baer come to mind. Today, we were to begin the.... Post has been published on Rockind Law
New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/no-mas-prosecution-says-on-day-of-trial/
No Mas, Prosecution Says On Day Of Trial
Words uttered famously by Robero Duran years ago in his infamous fight with Sugar Ray Leonard,
Duran failed to answer the bell. Other great fighters have failed to answer the bell as well, eg, Sonny Liston and Max Baer come to mind. Today, we were to begin the trial of Deloma Stone, a Detroit Police Officer, accused of a crime in Hamtramck. We were ready. The prosecution did not answer the bell. Despite a trial schedule that called for trial the entire day and plenty to do before 11:00 am, the prosecution moved to dismiss its own case at 9:00 am. It claimed that a police officer wasn’t going to be there until 11:00 am which raised questions, not the least of which was why not start and then out on the officer at 11:00 am? Instead the prosecution didn’t answer the bell.
What did Offc Stone and Rockind Law do? We objected. Yes, you read that right … we objected and wanted our trial to start right away. The 11:00 am tardiness issue seemed like a smoke screen: surely we could have started and waited for the officer. Stone and Rockind Law wanted at them. Why?
Because the law has this thin crack in situations such as this where s prosecutor can dismiss s case “without prejudice”, meaning that they can bring the case again, tormenting the defense even more with increased cost and stress. Rockind Law drew the line in that sand and insisted that the case proceed.
Bring on the jury and let the prosecutor do his best to make his case, Rockind Law argued. We wanted this…
In the meantime, the prosecution was advised they we possessed incontrovertible evidence that the officers acted incorrectly and worse that they had lied. I teased it a bit to the judge and prosecutor and insisted that the judge make rulings today that are “law of the case”, meaning that they remain whether the prosecution moves forward or not. I wanted a trial but just as assuredly didn’t wantthe prosecution to be given a chance to improve its hand by delaying. The judge agreed, at one point admonishing the prosecutor about the police tactics in the case.
So the case is dismissed for the time being. It will be an interesting choice for the prosecution: take the dismissal or push on, refile the case and watch as a police officer is forced to seal his fate be testifying in the face of powerful video evidence. We shall see: do you they go quietly into the dark night or charge at this proverbial windmill. Either way, we will answer the bell again.
