The prosecution in the NY case against Trump is apparently willing to
delay sentencing until 2029 when Trump will be out of office. Without addressing the actual merits of the conviction, isn't this a pretty
overt violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a speedy trial?
After all, you would think the actual sentencing would be a pretty
important component of a trial in the event of conviction, and a
four-year+ delay is anything but speedy. Are there any major known
cases where the announcement of the sentence following conviction was
delayed this long?
The prosecution in the NY case against Trump is apparently willing to
delay sentencing until 2029 when Trump will be out of office. Without addressing the actual merits of the conviction, isn't this a pretty
overt violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a speedy trial?
After all, you would think the actual sentencing would be a pretty
important component of a trial in the event of conviction, and a
four-year+ delay is anything but speedy.
Are there any major known
cases where the announcement of the sentence following conviction was
delayed this long?
As I understand things, a trial ends with the pronouncement of the
verdict, and at least in serious crimes the sentencing is part of a
separate hearing. Victims may be given a chance to speak to the judge
in open court, for instance.
On 11/21/2024 1:06 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
As I understand things, a trial ends with the pronouncement of the
verdict, and at least in serious crimes the sentencing is part of a
separate hearing. Victims may be given a chance to speak to the judge
in open court, for instance.
Yes, the trial ends with the pronouncement of the verdict, but the judge
will usually delay sentencing if the case is at all complex. (Might do
it even with a guilty plea.)
And the label "felon" attaches only after sentencing.
So Trump is _technically_ not a felon and won't be until after the judge sentences him. Contrary to what a lot of mainstream news-people have
been saying.
Btw, the usual sentence for this sort of thing is a fine, so he wouldn't spend time behind bars anyway. Pity that.
On 11/21/2024 1:16 AM, Rick wrote:
The prosecution in the NY case against Trump is apparently willing to
delay sentencing until 2029 when Trump will be out of office. Without
addressing the actual merits of the conviction, isn't this a pretty
overt violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a speedy trial?
After all, you would think the actual sentencing would be a pretty
important component of a trial in the event of conviction, and a
four-year+ delay is anything but speedy. Are there any major known
cases where the announcement of the sentence following conviction was
delayed this long?
Not that I can think of. But... the right to a speedy trial belongs to
the accused, not to the world in general. So I can't think of any reason
not to postpone sentencing until he leaves office (presumably January
20, 2029), if the prosecution and the judge are amenable.
Barry Gold wrote:
On 11/21/2024 1:16 AM, Rick wrote:What would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
The prosecution in the NY case against Trump is apparently willing to
delay sentencing until 2029 when Trump will be out of office.
Without addressing the actual merits of the conviction, isn't this a
pretty overt violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a speedy
trial? After all, you would think the actual sentencing would be a
pretty important component of a trial in the event of conviction, and
a four-year+ delay is anything but speedy. Are there any major known
cases where the announcement of the sentence following conviction was
delayed this long?
Not that I can think of. But... the right to a speedy trial belongs to
the accused, not to the world in general. So I can't think of any
reason not to postpone sentencing until he leaves office (presumably
January 20, 2029), if the prosecution and the judge are amenable.
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
Not that I can think of. But... the right to a speedy trial belongs toWhat would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
the accused, not to the world in general. So I can't think of any reason
not to postpone sentencing until he leaves office (presumably January
20, 2029), if the prosecution and the judge are amenable.
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
What would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
On 11/22/2024 11:39 AM, Ken wrote:
What would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
I can't think why not. It surely must happen from time to time that a
judge dies or is incapacitated or even disqualified during a trial.
AFAIK they just bring in another judge. Juries have to be continuous,
they must hear all the evidence. But a judge is only needed to rule on questions of law that arise during the trial, and I can't think of any
reason why another judge couldn't step in and rule on any questions that arise after they take over. Maybe taking an hour or two to acquaint
theirself with past issues and rulings.
On 11/22/2024 6:19 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
On 11/22/2024 11:39 AM, Ken wrote:
What would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
I can't think why not. It surely must happen from time to time that a
judge dies or is incapacitated or even disqualified during a trial.
AFAIK they just bring in another judge. Juries have to be continuous,
they must hear all the evidence. But a judge is only needed to rule on
questions of law that arise during the trial, and I can't think of any
reason why another judge couldn't step in and rule on any questions
that arise after they take over. Maybe taking an hour or two to
acquaint theirself with past issues and rulings.
Juries always have a couple of alternates in case something happens to
one or a couple of the twelve. And once they start deliberations, it's
only the twelve that are involved.
But what happens if, say, there's a courtroom shooter or an outbreak of
FHD (Fatal Hangnail Disease) that takes out six of the jury members
during the trial or if one has a heart attack during deliberations?
On 11/22/2024 6:19 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
On 11/22/2024 11:39 AM, Ken wrote:
What would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
I can't think why not. It surely must happen from time to time that a
judge dies or is incapacitated or even disqualified during a trial.
AFAIK they just bring in another judge. Juries have to be continuous,
they must hear all the evidence. But a judge is only needed to rule on
questions of law that arise during the trial, and I can't think of any
reason why another judge couldn't step in and rule on any questions
that arise after they take over. Maybe taking an hour or two to
acquaint theirself with past issues and rulings.
Juries always have a couple of alternates in case something happens to
one or a couple of the twelve. And once they start deliberations, it's
only the twelve that are involved.
But what happens if, say, there's a courtroom shooter or an outbreak of
FHD (Fatal Hangnail Disease) that takes out six of the jury members
during the trial or if one has a heart attack during deliberations?
On 11/22/2024 6:19 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
On 11/22/2024 11:39 AM, Ken wrote:
What would happen if the judge was not alive in 2029? Could another
judge determine the sentence? One would think not.
I can't think why not. It surely must happen from time to time that a
judge dies or is incapacitated or even disqualified during a trial.
AFAIK they just bring in another judge. Juries have to be continuous,
they must hear all the evidence. But a judge is only needed to rule on
questions of law that arise during the trial, and I can't think of any
reason why another judge couldn't step in and rule on any questions
that arise after they take over. Maybe taking an hour or two to
acquaint theirself with past issues and rulings.
Juries always have a couple of alternates in case something happens to
one or a couple of the twelve. And once they start deliberations, it's
only the twelve that are involved.
But what happens if, say, there's a courtroom shooter or an outbreak of
FHD (Fatal Hangnail Disease) that takes out six of the jury members
during the trial or if one has a heart attack during deliberations?
The original reason for the Fifth Amendment's ban: "nor shall any person
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb" was that the English-controlled government would try somebody for
some crime, the jury would bring in a "not guilty" verdict, and the government would just ignore the verdict and hold a new trial. The
colonists (quite sensibly) objected.
The original reason for the Fifth Amendment's ban: "nor shall any personI think the prohibition against double jeopardy predates the American revolution.
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb" was that the English-controlled government would try somebody for
some crime, the jury would bring in a "not guilty" verdict, and the
government would just ignore the verdict and hold a new trial. The
colonists (quite sensibly) objected.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:28:44 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,376 |