No-show St. Louis prosecutors trigger dismissal of 2020 murder case

[Excon]

ST. LOUIS — A circuit judge dismissed a 2020 murder case last week and said the Circuit Attorney’s Office “abandoned its duty” after St. Louis prosecutors failed three times to show for court hearings or respond to a court order to produce evidence.

No-show St. Louis prosecutors trigger dismissal of 2020 murder case

"In a case like this where the Circuit Attorney's office has essentially abandoned its duty to prosecute those it charges with crimes, the court must impartially enforce the law and

www.stltoday.com

This decision was correct.

Unfortunately ~ "On Thursday, a day after Sengheiser dismissed Campbell’s case, a prosecutor with the Circuit Attorney’s Office refiled charges. A judge ordered Campbell held without bail on the newly filed charges."

As far as I am concerned the Gov shouldn't get multiple chances like that.

 

[DataPoint]

I agree, but I suspect I am in the small minority with you, Excon.

 

[Napoleon]

I don’t agree. This guy has a wrap sheet, the crime was captured on video, and the defendant had to be retrieved by US Marshall’s after fleeing to two different States. The judge choosing to cut him loose knowing that information and blaming the Circuit Attorney for any subsequent threat to public safety doesn’t wash.

 

[DataPoint]

Of course it washes. The DA screwed up royally. The guy was cut free and the re-arrested.

 

[Excon]

I don’t agree. This guy has a wrap sheet, the crime was captured on video, and the defendant had to be retrieved by US Marshall’s after fleeing to two different States. The judge choosing to cut him loose knowing that information and blaming the Circuit Attorney for any subsequent threat to public safety doesn’t wash.

The Attorney is to blame for not following the rules. And this isn't a matter of a Judge simply cutting him loose after a simple no-show. It was after multiple no-shows and failing to respond to court orders.
The accused should not be held responsible for such abdication of duty.

We have laws for a reason. Not to break them. If the Gov doesn't follow their own laws you can not expect the citizens to follow the laws either.

A rap sheet is irrelevant to the prosecutors abdication. But his having such a rap sheet would be a good reason to have the prosecutor removed from office.

 

[Napoleon]

The Attorney is to blame for not following the rules. And this isn't a matter of a Judge simply cutting him loose after a simple no-show. It was after multiple no-shows and failing to respond to court orders.
The accused should not be held responsible for such abdication of duty.

We have laws for a reason. Not to break them. If the Gov doesn't follow their own laws you can not expect the citizens to follow the laws either.

A rap sheet is irrelevant to the prosecutors abdication. But his having such a rap sheet would be a good reason to have the prosecutor removed from office.

The judge’s choice here was discretionary and it was the wrong one with the available information. That the DA doesn’t have the resources to adequately cover cases when a prosecutor takes medical leave is not a good reason to unleash criminals on society.

 

[Excon]

The judge’s choice here was discretionary and it was the wrong one with the available information. That the DA doesn’t have the resources to adequately cover cases when a prosecutor takes medical leave is not a good reason to unleash criminals on society.

No. It was the correct decision. And the prosecutor is to blame.
And hopefully being recharged is an appealable issue for him.
If they violated the 90 day rule, the charges should be dismissed with prejudice.
And then the public can do the proper thing and have the prosecutor removed from office.

 

[phoenix2020]

The judge’s choice here was discretionary and it was the wrong one with the available information. That the DA doesn’t have the resources to adequately cover cases when a prosecutor takes medical leave is not a good reason to unleash criminals on society.

I disagree. The DA could at the very least have replied to emails sent directly to her. Instead she dropped the ball and all but admitted to it. The judge's choice after the first two no-shows were discretionary. Reassigning the workload of an employee on new parent leave is management 101. Slacking on this basic responsibility for several months is unacceptable.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The judge’s choice here was discretionary and it was the wrong one with the available information. That the DA doesn’t have the resources to adequately cover cases when a prosecutor takes medical leave is not a good reason to unleash criminals on society.

Speedy trial. It's a right in that raggedy old Constitution thing. It's a right we've started ignoring in the last year with COVID raging, but it needs to make a comeback.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Unfortunately ~ "On Thursday, a day after Sengheiser dismissed Campbell’s case, a prosecutor with the Circuit Attorney’s Office refiled charges. A judge ordered Campbell held without bail on the newly filed charges."

As far as I am concerned the Gov shouldn't get multiple chances like that.

In order for double jeopardy to apply, the accused had to first be in jeopardy once already. If the jury hadn't been yet empaneled, jeopardy hadn't yet attached.

 

[calamity]

This decision was correct.
...
As far as I am concerned the Gov shouldn't get multiple chances like that.

The judge dismissed with prejudice. Take it up with him.

 

[Excon]

The judge dismissed with prejudice. Take it up with him.

Thanks for showing you have no clue as to what you speak, as usual.

 

[Excon]

In order for double jeopardy to apply, the accused had to first be in jeopardy once already. If the jury hadn't been yet empaneled, jeopardy hadn't yet attached.

You said absolutely nothing relevant to my stated opinion.
Thanks.

 

[DataPoint]

I am not sure either of you know what you are talking about.

If the charges have been re-filed and accepted, the original dismissal was not with prejudice and certainly is not a double jeopardy issue.

 

[Excon]

I am not sure either of you know what you are talking about.

If the charges have been re-filed and accepted, the original dismissal was not with prejudice and certainly is not a double jeopardy issue.

Yeah. I have no clue as to why someone thought either of those things were at issue or being inferred.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You said absolutely nothing relevant to my stated opinion.
Thanks.

Your bit about "multiple chances" seemed like it was referencing double jeopardy. If not, okay, but feel free to drop the attitude, chum.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

If the charges have been re-filed and accepted, the original dismissal was not with prejudice and certainly is not a double jeopardy issue.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

 

[Excon]

If not, okay, but feel free to drop the attitude, chum.

I will feel however I choose. Right now it is with my fingers. Tomorrow it may be with my toes. You okay with that chum?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I will feel however I choose. Right now it is with my fingers. Tomorrow it may be with my toes. You okay with that chum?

I'm perfectly fine with however you choose to feel. As long as you feel free to drop your attitude, friend-o.

 

[Excon]

I'm perfectly fine with however you choose to feel. As long as you feel free to drop your attitude, friend-o.

Well friend-o, I think it is pretty clear I will do as I choose. You okay with that friend-o? And just wtf is a "friend-o"?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Well friend-o, I think it is pretty clear I will do as I choose. You okay with that friend-o? And just wtf is a "friend-o"?

Great. I'm a fan of liberty. I'm just not sure what productive purpose was being served by your attitude concerning my reasonable interpretation of your post to be referencing double jeopardy. I'll note I still don't know what it does reference, if not that.

Whatever the case, it's clear interacting with you in this thread is no longer useful. Have a good night, G.

 

[trouble13]

This decision was correct.

Unfortunately ~ "On Thursday, a day after Sengheiser dismissed Campbell’s case, a prosecutor with the Circuit Attorney’s Office refiled charges. A judge ordered Campbell held without bail on the newly filed charges."

As far as I am concerned the Gov shouldn't get multiple chances like that.

In fairness to the prosecution they were very busy working on bigger cases like bringing the McCloskey's to justice.

The Couple Who Waved Guns At BLM Protesters Plead Guilty To Misdemeanors

The wealthy duo's defense lawyer told NPR they "understand that what they did is a violation of Missouri law" but if faced with a similar situation, Mark McCloskey would do it again.

www.npr.org

 

[Excon]

In fairness to the prosecution they were very busy working on bigger cases like bringing the McCloskey's to justice.

The Couple Who Waved Guns At BLM Protesters Plead Guilty To Misdemeanors

The wealthy duo's defense lawyer told NPR they "understand that what they did is a violation of Missouri law" but if faced with a similar situation, Mark McCloskey would do it again.

www.npr.org

"In fairness"? Wut? iLOL

 

[trouble13]

Speedy trial. It's a right in that raggedy old Constitution thing. It's a right we've started ignoring in the last year with COVID raging, but it needs to make a comeback.

I doubt that applies here its almost standard practice for defendants to waive that right to prepare an adequate defense.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I doubt that applies here its almost standard practice for defendants to waive that right to prepare an adequate defense.

Maybe, maybe not. I was referring to the general sentiment conveyed, as I doubt it is restricted to this particular scenario.