In last week's session of the Woodstock Administrative Adjudication Court, Judge David Eterno explained that witnesses for the prosecution were not required to appear. He also explained that ordinances and statutes allow that and that he could rely on the officer's written report for the City's testimony.
This came up in one of the cases involving the sale of tobacco to a minor. As I recall, the prosecuting attorney explained the absence of the confidential witness in the case.
This raises, for me, a legal issue. If the cop isn't in court and the confidential under-age purchaser of the tobacco isn't in court, either, then how can the defendant cross-examine his accuser? All he can attempt to do is discredit statements in the officer's report, and then the officer is not present to rebut those efforts.
Is that what the judge takes into consideration, when he has only the officer's written report? How many persons who are cited into court know how to defend themselves in court?
Do ordinances and statutes then attempt to minimize the importance of your right to confront your accusers in court? Or is it only in criminal trials that an accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him?
No doubt the City saves money by not having officers standing around in the hallway, waiting to testify, as happens over at the courthouse.
Can an accused in the local court insist that the officer and witnesses appear?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I want to try to understand this post. Woodstock City court is a kangroo court of the kangarooist kind. No burden, and this guy just hands out $500 fines like they were candy (recently he fined 7 yutes $3500, as a group, who all possessed one can of beer}
All of that and you now question whether this is ridiculous. That's pretty incredulous.
Another Lawyer, on which court date did Judge Eterno fine 7 minors, as a group, $3,500 for possession of one can of beer? Was that in May?
Post a Comment