A Bronx judge, fed up with the prosecution’s shilly-shallying while the accused waited in jail for three years, threatened to conduct the trial sans attorneys, according to In Justice Today.
Not since Columbus and the egg has there been such a brilliantly obvious solution to what had hitherto appeared to be an unsolvable problem. Here’s how an attorney-free trial would look:
Judge: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is charged with murder. Since there are no attorneys, there will be no opening statements, arguments or witnesses. The defendant, of course, is present.
Defendant: I’m innocent.
Judge: [to jury] I will now charge you on the law. The defendant is presumed innocent unless the People prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What’s your verdict?
Jury: (shrugging) Not guilty, what else?
I hope the judge at least voir dires the panel, or you might get a jury that will not follow that instruction. “Hey, if he’s innocent why is he here? The police arrested him, right? He was indicted, wasn’t he?”
LikeLike
Maybe in the Bronx they’ll ask, “If he’s guilty, why isn’t the DA here?”
LikeLike
We have no equivalent to the Bronx here.
LikeLike
The In Justice Today link only goes to their front page. Could you link to the specific article that was cited? Thanks.
BTW, Shakespeare offered this solution in Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2 when Dick the Butcher said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”
LikeLike
The full quote is: “More than three years after Lora’s murder, the judge in the [Brian Solano] case demanded that there be no further delays in the case. ‘I’m not going to embrace any excuses by either side on April 2nd,’ Bronx Supreme Court Judge Steven Barrett said during a February 21 hearing. ‘The case is going to go to trial even if I have to do it myself without any attorneys.’”
The title of the article is “Exclusive: Leaked Police Interview Reveals Key Evidence that a Bronx Judge Has Barred in Upcoming Murder Trial.” Dated 4/4/2018.
LikeLike