PDA

View Full Version : Judge sets accused criminals free because prosecutor arrived a minute late to court



freespirit
15th August 2011, 06:49 PM
http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/judge_sets_accused_criminals_free_because_prosecut or_arrived_a_minute_late_to_court/f95aa3f4

Newmarket Judge Howard Chisvin let 12 accused criminals go free when a prosecutor arrived late. His hasty decision has become the subject of much criticism, especially since Chisvin frequently shows up late to court himself.

On Wednesday, the Toronto Star began keeping track of Judge Howard Chisvin's timeliness after he made a controversial decision to let a dozen accused criminals go free when assistant Crown Attorney Brian McCallion was 1 min and 27 seconds late returning to court on July 21.

Chisvin dismissed the provincial cases "for want of prosecution," even though some of the accused had already pleaded guilty and were waiting for sentencing.

The Star found that Chisvin started the morning court session 2 minutes and 7 seconds late and was late returning from every single break throughout the day by times ranging from 9 seconds to 19 min and 22 seconds.

Not surprisingly, Chisvin had valid excuses for his own tardiness (technical issues with recorders, courtroom transfers and informal pre-trial discussions), yet sometimes he had no excuse at all.

Judge Chisvin's blatant hypocrisy makes me particularly uneasy. It's frightening that a judge, whose job it is to weigh both sides of an argument, refused to even hear why McCallion had been so minimally late. Like the judge himself, the prosecutor may have run into technical difficulties pertaining to his job or had a family emergency that forced him to leave the house/office/car/subway just 1 min and 27 seconds too late. A leeway in these circumstances would be wholly appropriate if not for any other reason than the fact that time can vary from clock to clock.

The even scarier issue is that Chisvin let 12 people free without a seeming yo have a second thought. The fact that he allowed individuals, who had already pleaded guilty and were awaiting sentencing, to just walk away is an indication of something much more troubling than a lack of judgment on his part. No matter what the magnitude of the crime, it is in the interest of the public for the Chisvin to do his job and hear both sides of the case before dismissing anyone.

Judge Chisvin's behavior is a terrible example of how one person can abuse a system. I could try to understand why he acted in such an impulsive and irrational manner (bad day, power trip, personal grudge against prosecutor, needs a vacation), but the job he willingly accepted requires him to put all personal matters aside and make impartial decisions based off of the facts presented. We can't afford for him to makes such hypocritical and unreasonable judgments because they inevitably affect us all.

I wonder what, if anything, can be done to make sure this kind of judicial malfeasance doesn't happen again.

palani
15th August 2011, 06:58 PM
I wonder what, if anything, can be done to make sure this kind of judicial malfeasance doesn't happen again.

Do you suppose the defendant would be given the same leeway? Most times a default judgment of "guilty" would be entered on failure to appear.

iOWNme
15th August 2011, 07:14 PM
Did the author of this article recently arrive here from a time machine from 1952?

freespirit
15th August 2011, 07:19 PM
disclaimer---everything in OP is copied from the link...none are my own words.

freespirit
15th August 2011, 07:31 PM
Do you suppose the defendant would be given the same leeway? Most times a default judgment of "guilty" would be entered on failure to appear.

sorry palani...i'm not really following you...the defendants were dismissed, thats about as much leeway as it gets.
your right about a default judgement though...F.T.A.=guilty plea. but some of these people had already pled guilty, and the judge let them go.

BrewTech
15th August 2011, 07:36 PM
sorry palani...i'm not really following you...the defendants were dismissed, thats about as much leeway as it gets.
your right about a default judgement though...F.T.A.=guilty plea. but some of these people had already pled guilty, and the judge let them go.

I wonder how many pled guilty to avoid a trial they couldn't afford?

freespirit
15th August 2011, 07:55 PM
i'm sure there are some that would do that, but we have legal aid to help those that can't afford it...but i bet like everything else, you get what you pay for, that includes defense attorneys...lol

midnight rambler
15th August 2011, 11:44 PM
This judge slipped up by exposing his knowledge that the 'criminal justice system' is a joke and not to be taken seriously.

palani
16th August 2011, 03:41 AM
sorry palani...i'm not really following you...the defendants were dismissed, thats about as much leeway as it gets.
your right about a default judgement though...F.T.A.=guilty plea. but some of these people had already pled guilty, and the judge let them go.

Sorry I was not clearer. If YOU had a case going to court and YOU failed to appear then a bench warrant would be issued for your arrest. I stated that a default judgment of guilty would be entered. This may or may not be the case depending upon the type of trial.

To be perfectly symmetrical then when the prosecutor failed to appear the judge should have issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

Joe King
16th August 2011, 06:22 AM
To be perfectly symmetrical then when the prosecutor failed to appear the judge should have issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

I don't think so. The only reason a bench warrant is issued for a defendants failure to appear is because they haven't shown to answer the charges.
Except in this case it's the States agent who failed to show, which means he loses.

Is there a legal requirement that the prosecuter actually show up for Court?

palani
16th August 2011, 06:43 AM
Is there a legal requirement that the prosecuter actually show up for Court?

"Case dismissed for failure to prosecute".

Courts that would rather not hear a case frequently convince the policy-man involved to not appear and gain a reason to dismiss by so doing. If the defense argument is this strong the court would rather not create a paper trail that could be used by other victims.

palani
16th August 2011, 06:45 AM
i bet like everything else, you get what you pay for, that includes defense attorneys...lol

A public defender has one goal: to make sure none of the defendants rights are violated.

To make sure you understand this properly it should be read: to make sure the defendant has no basis for an appeal upon conviction.