What happens when a prosecutor is a minute late

[Ree]

I could not believe what I was reading.

A judge in Newmarket, Ontario (in Canada) let 12 accused go free because the prosecutor was 1 minute and 27 seconds late.


Some of those released had already pleaded guilty and were just awaiting sentencing.

The newspaper, the Toronto Star, followed the judge around and it seems he makes a habit of being tardy, himself.

What a hypocrite.
What a mockery of the judicial process.

[jackfaire]

What were the 12 accused of?

That to me is a major point that needs to be made fact. For example if we are talking minor traffic infractions I have less of an issue with that then if we are talking dangerous criminals here.

[Ree]

I don't think it matters at all, really, what the crime was.

They were charged of a crime and they pleaded guilty, but the judge dismissed the cases.

Yes, if they were rapists or murderers as opposed to being guilty of something like drug possession or trafficking, their being released onto the streets would be much more dangerous to society.

The point is, though, that the judge took issue with tardiness of about 90 seconds while he, himself, kept his courtroom waiting almost 20 minutes after a morning break. Everyone else had arrived on time. Maybe this prosecutor had a bad habit of arriving late and the judge had decided to make an issue of it. I don't know.
I do know, if one is expecting everyone else to follow a higher standard, they should help to set the bar with their own example.

I did find an article with more info:

All the accused people had either pleaded guilty already — and were awaiting sentencing — or were intending to do so. They were facing, or convicted, of charges ranging from impaired driving and robbery to domestic abuse and fraud.

One of them was a violent schizophrenic, and the reason the prosecutor was late was because he was reviewing the guy's psychiatric report in his office.

This same judge has made other controversial rulings that set a guilty person free:

Judge Chisvin, who was appointed to the bench in 2004 after an 18-year stint as a defence lawyer, is no stranger to controversy.

Three years ago, he set free a man who was facing four charges of assault, three of threatening and two of mischief in relation to a domestic dispute because the judge ruled he had been denied a properly speedy bail hearing.

But Judge Chisvin didn’t only release the man, also ordered the Crown to pay his $12,000 legal costs as a penalty for what he called its “lackadaisical attitude.”

Three months later, the same fellow, one Davood Zarinchang, was being sought by York Regional Police for attempted murder in connection with a violent home invasion.

[jackfaire]

I don't think it matters at all, really, what the crime was.

Do you mean in relation to being late? Or do you think no matter what crime it should never ever be dismissed.

That is why I said knowing the nature of the crime is important. I was charged with driving without a license. The judge dismissed the charges against me at the recommendation of the deal the prosecutor and I worked out.

Also I am curious I didn't catch what country it was but in my county you can't enter a plea until the Prosecutor is present so no one would have plead guilty yet.

Plus how late was the prosecutor? The few times I have been to court the prosecutors had to be there up to 30 minutes ahead of time to meet with each defendant and discuss the charges with them before standing in front of the judge.

This was often used by the prosecutor to explain what deal he was willing to offer you, a fine instead of jail time etc. If the prosecutor didn't arrive to start doing that until the Judge was in the courtroom and ready to see the first defendant that the prosecutor hadn't even spoken too then that would be more than a minute or two late.

Technically it wouldn't be that late but it would mean the Judge sitting on his bench twiddling his thumbs waiting for the prosecutor to rush through a bunch of people possibly not giving them the full attention they deserve.


EDIT:

For that controversial ruling of throwing the case out on a technicality I would have to know if that is the law or if the judge did that because he felt like it.

If he did that because he felt like it then yes it was wrong to throw that case out if however the law states that failure to hold to procedure invalidates the case against the guy, evidence getting too old etc. and then upheld the law by letting the guy go then that would be something to take up with the ones making the laws.

[Ree]

If you go back, I have added more details.

The judge threw out an entire day's docket.
The people had appeared and pleaded guilty but were awaiting sentencing, and the judge threw all of it out.

Some of those cases have since come back to court under different judges.

I am not saying no case should be dismissed at all.
I am saying this judge, who seems to be notoriously pro-defendant, abused his power over what appears to have been a hissy fit over a 90 second delay.

On that other case, the guy had been waiting 24 days for a bail hearing.
Under Canadian law, a bail hearing must take place within 24 hours or at the earliest possible time a judge is available.
Unfortunately, because the courts were so backed up, that was the earliest his case could be heard.

[jackfaire]

If you go back, I have added more details.

Yeah that does sound like a judge who needs to lose his job though. I am curious though why was the prosecutor needed for sentencing?

In my county the sentence is up to the judge the prosecutor can say what the state wants but it's entirely up to the judge what the person gets and if the prosecutor is late or doesn't show up the judge would just go off of what he had already been given.

My name was to the end of the alphabet I spent way too much time watching other cases in court.

[Ree]

The Canadian courts are set up differently than the American system.

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/res...em_en.asp#hcco

Not all of the cases had been heard, but this particular courtroom is reserved for cases where a guilty plea is being entered.
Some of them had already entered their plea while others were going to be entering their plea that day.

They were still hearing a matter and the defense made a request for a recess to reconsider a submission.
The judge did not stipulate how long the recess would be, and the prosecutor went to his office to read the psychiatric report on that same case.

He was paged by the judge, but the PA system is only in the hallways and not in the offices, so he did not hear the page.

He returned to the courtroom to find that the judge had thrown out the docket for the entire day.
Those people waiting to enter their guilty plea were sent home, as were those awaiting sentencing.

[bainsidhe]

And I'm sure the victims of the robbery, domestic abuse and fraud were just thrilled with his ruling. Yeah, he's gonna catch flak for that.

[jackfaire]

The judge did not stipulate how long the recess would be, and the prosecutor went to his office to read the psychiatric report on that same case.

He was paged by the judge, but the PA system is only in the hallways and not in the offices, so he did not hear the page.

Okay I still agree the judge was in the wrong this part is on the Prosecutor though.

He knows the length of the recess has not been set, he knows (unless it's his first day) that the PA system doesn't have a speaker in his office and that he can't hear it from there. Is there a rule saying he couldn't have grabbed the file from his office and brought it with him?

I keep comparing it to ours because I was under the impression the legal system was similar.

A prosecutor here will have all relevant data in a rolling filing case so that during recesses he can review it in the courtroom.

[Ree]

this part is on the Prosecutor though.

He knows the length of the recess has not been set, he knows (unless it's his first day) that the PA system doesn't have a speaker in his office and that he can't hear it from there.

Well he obviously had an approximate idea of how long it should be, since he was only off by a few seconds.

[MrsEclipse]

My first reaction was that ~90 seconds was not long enough to wait on cases like these. Then for some reason I'm imagining this on a sliding scale.

If the people are accused of minor traffic infractions, like speeding or running a yellow/red light, the prosecutor can be five minutes late. For vandalism of public property or breaking into homes while people are on vacation, fifteen to twenty minutes. Murderers get up to two hours.

... I'm pretty sure I'm not being serious here. Can't tell anymore.

Seriously, though, ninety seconds late for 12 cases for crimes of that nature is ridiculous. Okay, sure, people really shouldn't be late. They should be on time, or a few minutes early. But we don't live in Shouldland, and sometimes things come up and people run a little late. We should all try to be a little understanding of other people.

If the prosecutor was late because he was finishing watching streaming videos on his laptop, yeah, that's disrespectful. Maybe he should be given a reprimand for wasting other people's time. Actually, come to think of it, if he was three hours late because he was sleeping off a hangover, I wouldn't handle it by dismissing the cases. Of course, I'm not a judge or Canadian so I don't know what the alternatives are. But there's gotta be something besides put up with a hypothetical "late-y bug" who wastes everypony's time and dismissing twelve cases. I mean, Canada's a pretty sensible guy.

[DrFaroohk]

I have to ask what would happen if the defendant was late. Can he just come in and say "Oh sorry I forgot I had a subpoena. Sorry!"