jeichelberg87

Sorry but rydabent is accurate. Due process rights guarantee a speedy trial. If a defense attorney is asking for postponement of a trial, it is simply a stall tactic to allow memories to fade.

Think of it this way...the prosecutor asks for a delay to assemble more evidence. The defense attorney would be arguing any delay is an abridgment of due process rights to a speedy trial.

I-Like-To-Bike

I missed any reference to the reason why "this has been postponed until Sept."

Perhaps Rydabent or jeichelberg87 can provide the source/basis of their conclusion that that the defense attorney requested a delay from the court and received it just by declaring that the defense wanted/needed to stall the proceedings in order to allow memories to fade.

jeichelberg87

1) The defense did indeed ask for the postponement: "The Baltimore state's attorney's office said it "does not comment on open cases," but noted the postponement came at the request of Cook's attorneys."

2) Why else would a defense attorney ask for a postponement? Absent any explanation offered by the defense, the only reason the attorney for a drunken killer would ask for a postponement would be in the hope of fading memory. Of course, no defense attorney will stand up and admit such when filing for a postponement.

It just so happens the stated reason in this case is to reach a plea agreement and avoid a trial.

Of course, seeing your history of demands of "proof," allow me to state here and now, I am a BF legal scholar extraordinaire.

That title does not make me wrong in this instance as I am absolutely 100 percent right in this instance.

mconlonx

No, rydabent is not accurate. And not in this case, either.

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Speedy trial is certainly part of due process, but it's not the only part, and apparently in this case, delaying the case is a legal right owed to the former Bishop, under the auspices of due process, which was respected by the court.

Would we rather the extension was denied and any conviction able to be contested due to not honoring the rights of the accused...?

jeichelberg87

There will be a conviction...more apt to write, "please of guilt." And it is part of the process. But it is not "due process." In other words a request for delay of trial would be heard as part of the process, but not necessarily granted. There is no part of due process stating such a request must be granted.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure you are, just like rydabent and the tar and feather brigade of League of BF Justice are sure of themselves. No more proof about your "credentials" is necessary, you are a confirmed BF Legal Beagle.

I do admit to requesting BF purveyors of mush-mouth baloney to provide any evidence that they have a clue at all.

jeichelberg87

Not even a reason offered from the cat here, nor even a worthwhile rebuttal or examination of of the event. Just goop...keep on pedaling...nothing to see...just a drunk bishop with the blood of a cyclist on her hand...please forget what you saw....

rydabent

Has the former Bishop turned in her drivers license? Has she quit drinking? If neither of these are true, with this delay the public might be in danger. I maintain that the sooner she is off the street and in jail, the better it will be for public safety.

And finally--------------yes this killer is due all her legal rights, but there is still that sticky matter of a dead cyclist.

mconlonx

It was in the rights of the accused for her lawyer to ask for a delay; it was within the purview of the judge to grant such a delay. What's the issue here? People totally unconnected to the case are upset she's not being hung out to dry sooner?

jeichelberg87

She killed someone. I do not want her hung out to dry. I want her to be held accountable. Simple enough, eh? Where's your interest lie in this case.

The only thing that brought me here was your misunderstanding of due process.

Having written that, I must further write I hope she receives the full and just penalty for her crime.

prathmann

According to Webster ( Due Process | Definition of due process by Merriam-Webster ) due process means:
"law : the official and proper way of doing things in a legal case : the rule that a legal case must be done in a way that protects the rights of all the people involved"

It's standard procedure (i.e. part of the official and proper way of doing things) that the defendant and their lawyer can request reasonable postponements if needed for additional negotiations with the prosecutor, to gather evidence, assemble witnesses, etc. That appears to be what has happened in this case and the judge approved of the delay. All seems in accord with the concept of due process.

Chris516

Her DMV records are sealed. The Maryland DMV seals the records automatically. Unless instructed otherwise by the individual.

Rollfast

I say we close the thread now and start a new conflagration later. Trying to see who can pee the farthest is not sanctioned. Yield to the cat, he is wise.

rydabent

Another thing to dislike about Maryland.

IMO the public has a right to know who they may be driving on the street with. Driving has alway been considerd a privledge granted by the state (the people).

kickstart

I believe driving records are not public domain in most if not all states as they contain personal information, the same with license plates, as the information was used in the past by stalkers and thieves. Court records of violation convictions are public though.

Really, its another example of erring on the side of protecting the innocent.

mconlonx

My interest in the case is only as an unattached observer. Like you.

She is being held accountable. Simple enough, eh?

I posted a definition of due process I found online, from multiple sources; I have no specific legal training or education. It seems broader and more comprehensive that your perception of what due process means, right to a speedy trial only being a part of what is covered by due process.

But since this is problematic between us in this discussion, let me be more specific: the delay in a trial date or furthering the legal process in this case is done under the umbrella of existing law. There is nothing illegal or out of sorts with what her defense team asked for and was granted by the judge in the case. The trial against her is moving forward, she will eventually face accountability in court.

The pace of the trial might be annoying to outside observers like us, but I'd rather the trial proceed under the color of law than shortcuts taken which could very reasonably lead to grounds for dismissal and/or appeal of an eventual conviction.

For those who gnash internet teeth regarding the glacial pace of trials like these -- would you rather circumvent existing law for speedy convictions?

Chris516

Trial of former bishop Heather Cook postponed - Baltimore Sun
Saturday, She was given a postponement until 9/9/2015 to consider her plea.

FBinNY 

With apologies to Yogi Berra, it's Deja Vu all over again.

Wasn't the trial postponed to 9/9 back in June? And wasn't virtually the identical article printed in the Sun at that time?

I went back to post 341 for a reality check, wanting to reread the article linked back then and compare, but that link points to the article now dated 7/6 (is there a time warp on the net?).

In any case, I (think I) remember the mention of postponing to negotiate a plea deal, and the defendent being driven away in a U-Haul, so I'm wondering if this is just a redate of old news.

I-Like-To-Bike

You need to get past the header/headline date. It is the same article dated June 5. Of course the tar and feather crowd are only repeating the same tried and true clueless rant.

FBinNY 

Thanks for that. I thought I fell into a time warp.

OTOH- why would someone repost a link to the same article and court reschedule that they've been ranting about these last 3 weeks?

I-Like-To-Bike

Are you expecting logical, or even rational thought from the A&S Legal Beagle/Tar and Feather crowd on this subject; aren't you the silly fellow?

TheManShow

A drunk killed a bicyclist, the drunk drivers occupation had zero to do with the offense of vehicular homiced or manslaughter while under the influence.

Hopefully a jury will convict the accused of the crime, the the judge will pass a tough sentence sending the convicted criminaal away for a long in some state prison.

kickstart

Once upon a time, people who accepted positions of community leadership or service were held to higher standards.

Chris516

That is a knee-slapper!!!! I didn't even drink anything on July 4th, and I still got the month wrong!!!!!

mconlonx

This being the result of a second DUI, there should be a tough sentence applied...

...however, lately, being held to a higher standard is more associated with being given preferential treatment by the justice system.

So who knows how this will turn out. :