A court judge issued misdemeanor charge and fined a driver $50 for running through a red light, hitting another car and causing injuries to the other driver. It was the City vs. this driver (defendant). A court hearing was first rescheduled at the request of the cited driver or defendant's attorney who said they were to bring witnesses. The time of the hearing was changed again (one hour and a half ahead of the origionally scheduled time) on the day for the rescheduled hearing. Two witnesses for the city, including the victim, did not know the change. One witness for the city was contacted and told that the defendant and his lawyer had decided to plea guilty instead of going through trial (appearing to have no witness). The witness was able to get there while the trial continued. However, this witness was told to wait outside of the court room. When the trial was over, the witness was told that the defendant plead no contest and paid fine. Is there something wrong with this process
2007-02-28
14:49:51
·
4 answers
·
asked by
discover2
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law Enforcement & Police
If the No contest plea is a conviction without trial, why wouldn't the defendant plea no contest in the first place instead of telling the prosecutor that they were going to plea guilty. The defendant's attorney requested the court hearing to be rescheduled in order to bring in witnesses. Then there was sudden change of hearning (or trial) time for the rescheduled hearing. Is the defendant allowed to plea no contest since he had asked for another chance to bring in witness? One witness received a meesage (but more than a hour late) from the prosecutor's office that asker her to be at court earlier. That sounded like there would still be a trial. A call telling the witness that the defendant was going to plea guilty without trial made the witness feel that there is no need to go to court. However, the witness went but was not allowed to appear in court. Is there some kind of manipulation here?
2007-02-28
20:44:31 ·
update #1