Things I've noticed over my last 10 or so trips to different courtrooms/courthouses. Only attorneys and smart defendants wear dress clothes. Most of your habitual dumbasses wear ratty Bud Light t-shirts, FUBU with 12 chains of gold, Bob Marley shirts, shirts with Marijuana leaves on them (always up on drug charges), etc. It isn't that these guys break the law -- it is that they are just so STUPID.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Got court at 1:30
- Thread starter Mill
- Start date
meltdown75
Lifer
are you an attorney?
loup garou
Lifer
No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!
i use to think that too.... dress nice get respect even though your in trouble.... but now i think if u dress nice the judge knows u can pay the fine and if u dress like a thug in ratty clothing he might lessen the fine knowing that u dont know any better and knowing u prolly can afford a cheeseburger. if i was to get in trouble again i would prolly still dress nice
George P Burdell
Lifer
whats your business with the judiciary today?
Accipiter22
Banned
bahahahah
meltdown75
Lifer
^ this was basically my question too. 🙂
Dressing in proper dress attire for a court appearance shows that you have respect for the law and the judge is likely to go easier on you. If you dress like a bum, it comes off as disrespectful and judges DO NOT like that. If you dress crappy and the judge thinks you can't afford the fine, more likely he'll just throw you in jail instead. I don't know about you but I'll take the fine.
And to the OP, why are you spending so much time in court unless you are a lawyer? Whom did you allegedly kill?
The case I saw today:
Original Court Date - May 05
1st Trial Date - August 22, 2005
2nd Trial Date - November 30, 2005
The Officer who was subpoenaed did not show again today. This was in contrast to the Judge's prior order that he show. The Prosecutor says that she was told "just today" that the Officer in question was recently sent to Iraq. Date of his tour was unknown, so case was reset to September 11, 2006. Attorneys from the Defense side objected on grounds of lack of a speedy trial (officer had missed earlier court dates -- not just this one), and the Judge said he'd hear a motion on it at a later date. Motion for dismissal was denied on the grounds that the officer was unavailable.
The Prosecution has no witness, nor any direct evidence. They are worried about the testimony of their witness (who is in Iraq), because it will easily be impeachable after a year and a half. No one believes that testimony can be accurate in a minor case after a year and a half -- not with the volume of work and the lack of a decent police report.
The Defense turned down a plea bargain from the Prosecution (it was one of the most BS deals they'd ever heard of), and are researching the deployment date of the officer. If he deployed AFTER the orginal trial dates then the hope is that the Judge will dismiss the case. If not, the argument goes back to a speedy trial, and if the motion is denied it will be appealed through the appellates. There would be no problem if the Officer had been gone from the beginning, but the subject was arrested in March 2005, and since then the officer WAS stateside. The prosecution failed to get the case tried in time.
Interesting stuff, can't say I've ever seen a non-felony trial delayed this much.
Original Court Date - May 05
1st Trial Date - August 22, 2005
2nd Trial Date - November 30, 2005
The Officer who was subpoenaed did not show again today. This was in contrast to the Judge's prior order that he show. The Prosecutor says that she was told "just today" that the Officer in question was recently sent to Iraq. Date of his tour was unknown, so case was reset to September 11, 2006. Attorneys from the Defense side objected on grounds of lack of a speedy trial (officer had missed earlier court dates -- not just this one), and the Judge said he'd hear a motion on it at a later date. Motion for dismissal was denied on the grounds that the officer was unavailable.
The Prosecution has no witness, nor any direct evidence. They are worried about the testimony of their witness (who is in Iraq), because it will easily be impeachable after a year and a half. No one believes that testimony can be accurate in a minor case after a year and a half -- not with the volume of work and the lack of a decent police report.
The Defense turned down a plea bargain from the Prosecution (it was one of the most BS deals they'd ever heard of), and are researching the deployment date of the officer. If he deployed AFTER the orginal trial dates then the hope is that the Judge will dismiss the case. If not, the argument goes back to a speedy trial, and if the motion is denied it will be appealed through the appellates. There would be no problem if the Officer had been gone from the beginning, but the subject was arrested in March 2005, and since then the officer WAS stateside. The prosecution failed to get the case tried in time.
Interesting stuff, can't say I've ever seen a non-felony trial delayed this much.
middlehead
Diamond Member
*makes note of no "pants" existing in that requirement*
I'll keep that in mind next time I get a ticket
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
