[nfbmi-talk] : charges dismissed against blind protester

[JohnC. Scott]

Dear Sir:

I am alarmed by your post, but I am not surprised.  Americans these days are
so misinformed,  miseducated and literaaly duped by the radical right -wing
so called conservatives they don't see the erosion of their Constitutional
Rights as we slide into a third world police state.  I spent over thirty
years prosecuting defendants accused of ordinance violations.  The law has
been and hopefully will always be this.  The burden of Proof is upon the
prosecutor to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove each and every
element of the charges being brought against the defendant.  The defendant
is required to prove nothing. In short the prosecutor must prove he/she has
a case based on the facts and the law.  I always expected the defendants to
lie, because they were in trouble and had the most to lose.  Even though I
expected the cops to tell the truth, I was not surprised when they lied.
Thnis is why one of the rules of Evidence is this.  You cannot give a police
officer's testimony any extra weight, just because he or she is a police
officer.   As I once said at a police academy class I was teaching, "the
only thing worse than a lying cop is an unscrupulous prosecutor!".
Unfortunately, I have plenty experience with both.  
I personally know Joe Harcz.Yes, he has a big mouth.  Especially, when he is
asserting the rights of the blind.  However, if I am not mistaken, he has a
first amendment right to have a big mouth, so long as he does not endanger
the life or property of others.  I was dismayed that the case had gone as
far as it did.  The county prosecutor wisely prevented a possible
miscarriage of justice.  When a person interferes with or obstructs a police
officer  in the performance of his/her duty, it must be shown that the
officer was performing the duty "lawfully". Could the prosecutor   meet this
burden of proof.  I don't know.  I do know there are lots of people found
guilty that are innocent.  I know I have prosecuted people that were found
guilty, and I thought the judge or jury made a mistake.  Of course the
opposite has happen to me too.  

In closing, I must apologize.  I did not mean to pour out my frustrations
upon you, nor the readers of this list.  I wish you well and hope I have
given you a few morsels to chew on. 

Cordially, 



John C. Scott



-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Kane
Brolin via nfbmi-talk
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:47 AM
To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Kane Brolin <kbrolin65 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] : charges dismissed against blind protester

On 8/23/16, William Vandervest via nfbmi-talk <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> if he broke the law, and or was charged with a crime, then he should 
> have gone before a judge reguardless of where the trial was held period!!!

William, what I hear you saying here seems to be based on faulty reasoning.
Unless the President has somehow eliminated all common law principles from
our American legal system by executive order, we still have a principle in
this country called "presumption of innocence": in other words, a defendant
is presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Whether Joe Harcz broke the law would not be determined until a judge and/or
a jury heard the case in a fair trial and made a determination.
I don't think anyone is saying that charges against a blind man should be
dropped unless the venue were an accessible courthouse.  On the other hand,
I think it is a highly plausible argument to say that if the charges had
been maintained, it would have been a reasonable request to move the venue
to a place where a significant number of Mr.
Harcz's friends and family and a significant number of blind or otherwise
disabled persons could be in attendance from the general public.

Clearly, in Joe's case the State must have reconsidered and decided that not
enough evidence exists to make it worthwhile to attempt to prove that Joe
broke the law.  So I think the verdict is in.

-Kane

_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/jcscot%40sbcglobal.n
et