Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although it's not clear from the article it seems that's what happened - the trial was held but the judge found the defendent not guilty because the victim didn't testify, even though there was evidence presented that the police saw injuries on the victim when they arrived at the scene. If no trial was held there couldn't have been a not guilty verdict. The judge participated in providing a defense for the guy and therefore acted on behalf of the defense, and then acted as adjudicator and found him not guilty.
Exactly. That is why I believe this judge is going to find himself in HUGE trouble with the law. Though it won't make the news, my guess is that he'll eventually be removed from the bench.
What the police saw when they arrived at the scene was only evidence that the woman had been injured, but did not constitute evidence that the man had caused the injuries. There was only one witness, and she declined to testify, so a conviction would not have been supported. The judge did not "provide" a defense for the guy. A witness declining to testify is not a "defense", it is a deficiency in the prosecution. Furthermore, the judge did not "cause" the marriage to happen. It would have happened anyway, and a judge does not "marry" people, he witnesses a marriage and is legally empowered to sign a statement that it occurred.
The judge did not do anything wrong. However, I bet he wishes he had recused himself from performing the marriage, and asked the couple to find another judge to do it. In which case, everything would have proceeded exactly as it did, with an acquittal of the defendant, but no reason for the story to attract so much undeserved attention.
What the police saw when they arrived at the scene was only evidence that the woman had been injured, but did not constitute evidence that the man had caused the injuries. There was only one witness, and she declined to testify, so a conviction would not have been supported. The judge did not "provide" a defense for the guy. A witness declining to testify is not a "defense", it is a deficiency in the prosecution. Furthermore, the judge did not "cause" the marriage to happen. It would have happened anyway, and a judge does not "marry" people, he witnesses a marriage and is legally empowered to sign a statement that it occurred.
The judge did not do anything wrong. However, I bet he wishes he had recused himself from performing the marriage, and asked the couple to find another judge to do it. In which case, everything would have proceeded exactly as it did, with an acquittal of the defendant, but no reason for the story to attract so much undeserved attention.
Wow. Somebody has to be getting pretty darned dizzy right about now.
Although it's not clear from the article it seems that's what happened - the trial was held but the judge found the defendent not guilty because the victim didn't testify, even though there was evidence presented that the police saw injuries on the victim when they arrived at the scene. If no trial was held there couldn't have been a not guilty verdict. The judge participated in providing a defense for the guy and therefore acted on behalf of the defense, and then acted as adjudicator and found him not guilty.
But you still have to prove how those injuries got there and who put them there...... And we had better be glad that it's that way...
But you still have to prove how those injuries got there and who put them there...... And we had better be glad that it's that way...
They also had the victim's initial statement to police.
I concede that I wasn't there so I don't know if there was enough evidence to support a conviction without the testimony of the victim or not. But it certainly seems that the judge had made up his mind about the guilt of the defendant even before hearing the case. He had already decided that without her testimony he was going to find him not guilty. Otherwise why agree to allow the parties to travel 15 miles to another courthouse to get the marriage license, have a 2nd judge waive the 48 hour waiting period, and then marry them. He knew before even hearing the case what his verdict was going to be. And he facillitated the process in order to have a basis to rule that way.
They also had the victim's initial statement to police.
I concede that I wasn't there so I don't know if there was enough evidence to support a conviction without the testimony of the victim or not. But it certainly seems that the judge had made up his mind about the guilt of the defendant even before hearing the case. He had already decided that without her testimony he was going to find him not guilty. Otherwise why agree to allow the parties to travel 15 miles to another courthouse to get the marriage license, have a 2nd judge waive the 48 hour waiting period, and then marry them. He knew before even hearing the case what his verdict was going to be. And he facillitated the process in order to have a basis to rule that way.
Not good....
Lets say my wife and I are having a heated argument and someone calls the police and she says I put the marks on her arms when asked by the police because she is pissed at me, but truth is she got them earlier in the day from something unrelated... But in court she can't say she lied now can she....
They also had the victim's initial statement to police.
I concede that I wasn't there so I don't know if there was enough evidence to support a conviction without the testimony of the victim or not. But it certainly seems that the judge had made up his mind about the guilt of the defendant even before hearing the case. He had already decided that without her testimony he was going to find him not guilty. Otherwise why agree to allow the parties to travel 15 miles to another courthouse to get the marriage license, have a 2nd judge waive the 48 hour waiting period, and then marry them. He knew before even hearing the case what his verdict was going to be. And he facillitated the process in order to have a basis to rule that way.
As I understand it, the couple was already engaged, the defendant was free on bail (or the judge had the authority to free him on his own recognizance, a constitutional right of the defendant) and could go wherever he pleased and do anything he pleased not in violation of the law or a court order. So he went and got a license, presented a legitimate reason for waiving the waiting period, and married his sweetheart. Judges, being human, probably nearly always make up their mind early on, and do not change it if there is no compelling subsequent evidence. In this case, there was no compelling evidence at all, because one witness had the legal right to place herself immune to testimony, and did so.
The judge has a right to look at the particulars of a case of domestic abuse and determine if the circumstances warrant a criminal conviction. In this case, he apparently did exactly that, and decided that this was a trivial case, that the criteria for a guilty verdict had not been met, and would have changed his mind only if the woman had testified to aggravating circumstances, which didn't happen for reason beyond the judge's control. Even if she did testify, the judge could still rule that the violence did not meet a criminal standard.
The bottom line is that, even if there was grounds for a conviction, the judge would have no power to obstruct the marriage, so the only thing he could do was to let it proceed, and play whatever part in it he was required by law to play.
Lets say my wife and I are having a heated argument and someone calls the police and she says I put the marks on her arms when asked by the police because she is pissed at me, but truth is she got them earlier in the day from something unrelated... But in court she can't say she lied now can she....
Of course she can say she lied. She wasn't under oath when she made those statements to the police. There would be no consequences to pay for admitting that a previous statement was a lie. Now if she lied in court while under oath...well that's a different story altogether. And she could be in trouble then. But if she's the defendant's wife and the law says that she cannot be compelled to testify against him, then the problem is resolved.
However, statements made to police are part of the evidence. It is up to an impartial judge or jury to decide how much weight to place in them. This judge relinquished his impartiality when he decided to collaborate with the defense and give the witness a legitimate reason to not testify.
Of course she can say she lied. She wasn't under oath when she made those statements to the police. There would be no consequences to pay for admitting that a previous statement was a lie. Now if she lied in court while under oath...well that's a different story altogether. And she could be in trouble then. But if she's the defendant's wife and the law says that she cannot be compelled to testify against him, then the problem is resolved.
However, statements made to police are part of the evidence. It is up to an impartial judge or jury to decide how much weight to place in them. This judge relinquished his impartiality when he decided to collaborate with the defense and give the witness a legitimate reason to not testify.
I don't know about where you live but in Texas it is a crime to lie (give a false statement) to a Police Officer...I don't know if it is a felony or not..
I don't know about where you live but in Texas it is a crime to lie (give a false statement) to a Police Officer...I don't know if it is a felony or not..
Okay - you are right about that. But what if she said that the offiicers just misunderstood the situation... that her statements were misinterpreted. I'm sure this happens all the time where witnesses retract their statements.
And this is really sort of beside the point.
I agree that no one can legally stop the two from getting married. From what I understand the defense attorney asked for a continuance in order to allow them to get married specifically so she could not be forced to testify. So the judge knew what the defense strategy was going to be, and not only condoned it but became a party to it.
Maybe he should have just allowed the postponement. Although if these two really wanted to get married totally unrelated to the case I don't understand why they waited until the day of the trial to do it. Generally in this area you wait months from the date of the incident to the date of the trial. They would have had plenty of time to tie the knot well before the court date. I suspect it was something that the public defender suggested the morning of the trial and they jumped on it. At any rate, the judge exercised very poor judgment by his actions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
