PDA

View Full Version : Judgment in Detroit trials



efx
03-27-2006, 09:30 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-palace-brawl&prov=ap&type=lgns

I didn't know if this was the correct forum to put this in. Mods, feel free to move it if necessary.

Anthem
03-27-2006, 11:07 PM
Weird. Convicted of punching Ron, but aquitted of throwing the cup because he didn't mean to hit him? I can't figure how they got there.

Kstat
03-27-2006, 11:14 PM
I would have liked to see how the legal arguments played out. Odd decision indeed.

He can still get 1/3 of a year, and I hope he does.

rexnom
03-28-2006, 12:04 AM
Such a douche...and he's appealing on the grounds that Artest breached his sixth amendment rights. Wow.

This guy and that Minnesota guy KG "pummelled" with a basketball prolly get together on weekends and bowl or something.

sc
03-28-2006, 03:32 PM
Like I said from the beginning it would be hard to convict him with a&b for throwing the cup.

Stryder
03-28-2006, 04:02 PM
No way is it breaching the sixth amendment.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

- 6th Amendment to the Constitution

Speedy and public trial? Check.

Impartial jury and within the district of the crime? Check.

Informed of the nature and cause of the accusation? Check.

To be confronted with the witnesses against him? Check. (Video tape, etc.). Artest didn't have to be at the trial, because he didn't file the charges. I believe it was the State of Michigan vs. xxx, and not Ron Artest vs. xxx.

Compulsory process for witnesses in his favor? Check. He did not call any, though.

Assistance for counsel in his defense? Check.

Peck
03-28-2006, 04:19 PM
No way is it breaching the sixth amendment.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

- 6th Amendment to the Constitution

Speedy and public trial? Check.

Impartial jury and within the district of the crime? Check.

Informed of the nature and cause of the accusation? Check.

To be confronted with the witnesses against him? Check. (Video tape, etc.). Artest didn't have to be at the trial, because he didn't file the charges. I believe it was the State of Michigan vs. xxx, and not Ron Artest vs. xxx.

Compulsory process for witnesses in his favor? Check. He did not call any, though.

Assistance for counsel in his defense? Check.

While I agree with you there may be one small problem. What if he wanted to call Ron Artest as a witness?

Stryder
03-28-2006, 04:24 PM
While I agree with you there may be one small problem. What if he wanted to call Ron Artest as a witness?


Subpoena? All I know is that the court didn't require Artest to be present, so there should be NO problem.

Anthem
03-28-2006, 07:05 PM
Subpoena? All I know is that the court didn't require Artest to be present, so there should be NO problem.
Right. If his lawyer wanted to talk to Ron, all he had to do is say so. The defense didn't call Ron, and the prosecution didn't need to (all of their evidence was on tape).

No case here.