If every judge fined lawyers for incompetence, the civil revenue would be sufficient to pave streets in gold. If they'd fine technical support in the same manner, we could do the sidewalks too.

This judge deserves the HERO tag, and I love this.

LOVE IT.

Yes, have a new trial for the defendant, but throw this one out and bill the scumbag angry prosecutor.

EXCELLENT.

Makes me think America still has a chance.

Precisely what the judge should have done. It's sad that this is news, but I'm glad it happened the way it did.

Excellent! I'm sensing the public's tolerance for brazenly incompetent prosecutors is waning. Perhaps the opinion is shifting against them. Could it be the dark cloud at the top? Alberto?

That is awesome. That prosecutor was a dumbass of epic proportions.

Where were you all for the Martha Stewart trial, hmmmMM?

Judge shouldn't get a medal for doing his job.

You know, it wasn't too long ago that this was the norm.

It wasn't until those "activist judges" came along in the 60s that common practices like this got thrown out in state courts.

ha ha!
u loose @ teh loz

Wha? A judge that actually kicked a prosecutor in the ass instead of letting it slide?

/amazed

Good call, Your Honor! Sad to see that this sort of thing is news, but good to see that there are still judges paying some farking attention out there.

She calculated that a retrial would cost taxpayers $26,204, not including such fixed costs as court and prosecutor salaries. So Russo ordered Mason's office to pay a fine equaling that amount to the court's administrative judge.

If the Judge orders the prosecutors office to pay the cost of the trial, isn't the tapayer going to pay in the end anyway?

Damn you Phil Moskowitz!

the_chief

When most of them don't do their job, someone actually doing what their supposed to is worth recognition.

1 year of business law, (that's pre-law), and I knew that, good job judge.

So, if you choose to represent yourself, plead the 5th, and then mention it when you're giving a closing argument, you go free?

Sounds like Homer Simpson Law.

the_chief

Judge shouldn't get a medal for doing his job.

We're going to have a lot less hero tags on Fark with all of the soldiers, firemen, and police officers taken out of the mix.

*doesn't understand what's going on*

Somebody explain please?

whyRpeoplesostupid: If the Judge orders the prosecutors office to pay the cost of the trial, isn't the tapayer going to pay in the end anyway?

D'oh!

How does the prosecutor's office pay the court? Are they not one in the same? It's all the taxpayer's money. The judge should have jailed the prosecutor for a few days, that would have made more sense.

Defense lawyers contended a mistrial isn't enough of a sanction and argued that the prosecution deliberately tanked Newcomb's trial because it was going poorly. They decided they lost the case because the jury wasn't going to impose a death sentence

Question for lawyer-types in here:

Why do prosecutors care if they "lose" the trial? It's not like THEY are going to jail. Is it an ego thing? Do prosecutors get paid more in bonuses if they put more people in jail or get more death sentences?

Nice job, idiot.


/also, beware the metal ones

djtripod?? You not know how to read or anything about the law?? Prosecutor = not the guy on trial, and I bet Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason wasn't on trial prosecuting himself.

whyRpeoplesostupid: If the Judge orders the prosecutors office to pay the cost of the trial, isn't the tapayer going to pay in the end anyway?

Maybe such a cost will alter the next fiscal budget, but it isn't likely that such an amount will do much more than end this lawyer's career in this district.

It's not like every time they spend money or get fined that the sate knocks on your door asking for a check. what happens is they petition a budget proposal some given period prior to the end of one fiscal year and the beginning of the next. Now unless there is a regular budget surplus in the tax district or this one incident accounts for a particular levy or tax increase it is not going to be noticed by the taxpayers other than a general awareness that their prosecutor is a moron.

If the Judge orders the prosecutors office to pay the cost of the trial, isn't the tapayer going to pay in the end anyway?

But it will at least (hopefully) cause short term budget problems for the prosecutor's office. It's not as if there's a huge pot of money that any government employee can dip into anytime they need some more. At least not right away, and not without a lot of red tape.

djtripod... it doesnt make the guy go free... a mistrial just means you have to start all over again.

As far as the integrity of the average prosecutor goes, I put them below used car salesmen but just above heroin dealers. I honestly think 99% of them don't give two figs if they put the wrong person in jail, or on death row for that matter. This scumbag should be disbarred.

I'm a first-year law student, so... never mind.

Anyway, the judge is right. Any first year student that paid any attention would know that is grounds for a mistrial, and any Criminal Prosecutor that doesn't should be disbarred.

But yeah...how the hell does the prosecutor's office pay without it coming back to the Taxpayer?

I guess I should have an answer...

/Pleads the 5th
//mispost???

logruszed and gradatim

Yeah, but the implication of the article is that the prosecutor will pay it from his own pocket.

emtlawstudent: ... a mistrial just means you have to start all over again

Oh right, but I wonder if you could opt to represent yourself again...

stiletto_the_wise

Why do prosecutors care if they "lose" the trial? It's not like THEY are going to jail. Is it an ego thing? Do prosecutors get paid more in bonuses if they put more people in jail or get more death sentences?

I worked in a prosecutor's office for a summer. I really didn't understand the answer to this question, which is why I'll never work in a prosecutor's office again, but I'll try to answer.

Prosecutors try just about every case that goes in front of them for career reasons. Whether they're going into politics, another lawyer job, or just further up the ladder in the prosecutor's office, they want to appear to be good lawyers. Since there's no way to control whether good cases of flimsy cases cross your desk, there is constant peer pressure to try every case.

The weirdest thing for me about working in that office was, there was NEVER any conversation about what cases should be tried. Whether to try a case is ALWAYS at the discretion of the prosecutor. But it's my experience that it is a very rare prosecutor who will exercise that discretion.

If I understand how these budgets work correctly, the prosecutors office is allocated a certain amount of money by the state to do their job. That is where the $26000 would come from, and that the prosecutors office would then have to adjust their budget accordingly to adjust for this loss.

DJTRIPOD!

Read the second sentence, he didn't represent himself, he had a lawyer!

whyRpeoplesostupid: Yeah, but the implication of the article is that the prosecutor will pay it from his own pocket.


now that would be painful.

But yeah...how the hell does the prosecutor's office pay without it coming back to the Taxpayer?

I guess I should have an answer...

The answer is that government bodies are barred from paying punitive damages, but not actual damages.

If, for example, the state was negligent and caused a car accident, the state could be made to pay damages and pain and suffering, but there could be no extra, preventative payment like individuals may have to pay.

Now, if you're asking why this fine wasn't a punitive damage, I don't know. It sounded like the judge got the figure from the actual cost of the defendant to try the case. Wasn't the money going to the defendant or the defendant's attorney?

djtripod:

It doesn't work that way
The prohibition is only against the State/DA mentioning the defendants failure to testify
The Defense can talk about it all they want- it may open the door for the State to comment however

Tallgordon
Right, but government bodies are funded by the Taxpayer, so compensatory or punitive, all funds would come from the public, right?

Tallgordon The weirdest thing for me about working in that office was, there was NEVER any conversation about what cases should be tried. Whether to try a case is ALWAYS at the discretion of the prosecutor. But it's my experience that it is a very rare prosecutor who will exercise that discretion.

Really? I thought they had to try everything. I live in a Commonwealth state, is that different?

It's such a basic "mistake" that the defense counsel was probably correct -- it might have been a deliberate decision to crash the case to avoid losing. Prosecutor had presented a bad case, thought he was losing, threw the ball into the stands and gets a do-over. Price tag: $26K. If he doesn't get caught throwing the case deliberately, he avoids double jeopardy attaching. And what judge is going to WANT to take the political heat for dismissing the charges for such a stunt?

Now the prosecutor gets another chance to re-make his case, knowing the defense, and may keep his batting record intact.

Some idjit wrote:

I worked in a prosecutor's office for a summer. I really didn't understand the answer to this question, which is why I'll never work in a prosecutor's office again, but I'll try to answer.

Prosecutors try just about every case that goes in front of them for career reasons. Whether they're going into politics, another lawyer job, or just further up the ladder in the prosecutor's office, they want to appear to be good lawyers. Since there's no way to control whether good cases of flimsy cases cross your desk, there is constant peer pressure to try every case.

The weirdest thing for me about working in that office was, there was NEVER any conversation about what cases should be tried. Whether to try a case is ALWAYS at the discretion of the prosecutor. But it's my experience that it is a very rare prosecutor who will exercise that discretion.


Funny, I've been working in a prosecutor's office for over a year now and it doesn't work like that at all. DA's look over EVERY case and if it looks like they can't meet their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) they dismiss the case. Only bad prosecutors don't exercise that discretion. DAs talk with other DAs about cases ALL THE TIME and cases get dismissed for lack of evidence every day.

Prosecutors have every means at their disposal to make sure that only winnable cases get tried, and that's usually what they do.

tk42schleg

The funds come from the taxpayers, but they go to the defendant. It's a redistribution.

Not even the government gets a pass when they screw up. If they cause an injury, they have to pay for it, which means ultimately the taxpayers pay for it. The only thing they don't have to pay is punitive damages.

whyRpeoplesostupid

Really? I thought they had to try everything. I live in a Commonwealth state, is that different?

Nope. They don't have to try a thing. Total discretion to pursue or drop any case they like.

Raymong: The Defense can talk about it all they want- it may open the door for the State to comment however

I don't know about that - I was a juror in a trial where that's exactly what happened, and it resulted in a mistrial.

FuDude

Hey, don't kill the messenger. Different counties and different states have very different prosecutors offices I'm sure.

But the ones I worked with often seemed to have the attitude, "Well, the police officer put this case on my desk, and I don't want to embarrass the police officer, so I better go forward with it."

I actually had one memo I had to write where the judge made a completely illegal error in our favor. Basically ended the trial before it was over and declared us the winner. No support for the decision in any law book or theory of law. But my boss asked me to write a memo supporting the decision because "It would embarrass the trial judge" if we didn't argue the appeal.

So hey, I don't know your prosecutor's office. Maybe your guys think critically and apply the law reasonably. But where I worked it was all politics.

Where the defense attorney commented on it? Or where the DA commented on the defense commenting on it?

Cause a defendant can mention it all he wants

I keep seeing Lionel Hutz.

Prosecutors have to have a good win/lose ratio. This is the reason for them to offer a good plea-deal (a plea is the same as a win).

The underlying reason for wanted to keep a good win/lose ratio is career. You need to have it to move up, to get into politics, or to get reelected. This is the reason you get crap like the Duke Lacrosse team trial.

Tallgordon

Not even the government gets a pass when they screw up. If they cause an injury, they have to pay for it, which means ultimately the taxpayers pay for it. The only thing they don't have to pay is punitive damages.

From what I recall, the state can invoke sovereign immunity whenever the hell the please. Not that they do it whenever the hell they please, but they can.