The equation of crime... Who's good in math?...

[WestbankNOLA]

Originally Posted by allcladrad

I am very unclear about the 60 day rule mentioned above.

My only experience is in California where an arrestee must but brought before a judge and charged with a crime within 72 hours or released.

Can someone, anyone, be arrested and held for two months just based on the original arrest? Surely there must be at least a probable cause hearing. Constitutional right to a speedy trial?

You can't hold anyone in Louisiana for more than 60 days without credible evidence and being formally charged. It's called a 701 release.

[allcladrad]

I got that much, what I don't get is how anyone is held for two months without a charge being brought. that is unconstitutional.

Not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to understand. Again as my only reference, California, a person needs to be charged, in court, with a crime with in 72 hours or released, If charged, the person has a right to a speedy trial, a term that is ambiguous at best, can take a year, but only if the charged agrees or is the one asking for the time.

Is this where 701 comes in, charged but not brought to trial?

[WestbankNOLA]

Originally Posted by allcladrad

I got that much, what I don't get is how anyone is held for two months without a charge being brought. that is unconstitutional.

Is this where 701 comes in, charged but not brought to trial?

It's similar to the Califonia law if I'm understanding it correctly. The difference is that it lasts for 2 months instead of 3 days, saying that you can't hold anyone on a felony without an indictment. If I'm not mistaken, in other states you can be held based on a reasonable doubt from the arresting officer, which makes being released before being indicted unlikely without bail.

[allcladrad]

WestbankNOLA,
I read the section and you are correct. Thanks for the clarification.

[Squeamish]

It's poverty and lack of educational opportunities. No, it's the ghetto culture that glorifies thugs. No, it's whitey's fault. It's racism's fault.

It's a very complex situation, and I think there's truth to all these statements. One perspective being partially true does not mean the other is not. Many factors come together to make the problem worse. I read a book on how St. Louis became the poverty-stricken crime-ridden city it is today, and I still don't understand it.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by allcladrad

I got that much, what I don't get is how anyone is held for two months without a charge being brought. that is unconstitutional.

Not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to understand. Again as my only reference, California, a person needs to be charged, in court, with a crime with in 72 hours or released, If charged, the person has a right to a speedy trial, a term that is ambiguous at best, can take a year, but only if the charged agrees or is the one asking for the time.

Is this where 701 comes in, charged but not brought to trial?

What is means is that if an indictment has not been filed within 60 days, the charges get dropped. Charges get filed, but the CHARGES get dropped if no indictment gets filed within 60 days.

[Neworleansisprettygood]

Originally Posted by allcladrad

I am very unclear about the 60 day rule mentioned above.

My only experience is in California where an arrestee must but brought before a judge and charged with a crime within 72 hours or released.

Can someone, anyone, be arrested and held for two months just based on the original arrest? Surely there must be at least a probable cause hearing. Constitutional right to a speedy trial?

That was really an issue under Eddie Jordan. Haven't heard of it in years.