Late Night: I Shall Be Released

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:36:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Context: After a big battle yesterday, I won a detention hearing in federal court getting bail for a very young client in a drug case. Like all such hearings, it was decided by a Magistrate Court Judge.

Even when the defendant wins, the Government can get a stay of the release order while it decides whether to appeal to the District Court Judge. So despite winning the bail issue, my client stays locked up.

At 4:55 pm today, the Government filed a motion with the District Court Judge to revoke the Magistrate Judge's order. I will now spend the weekend writing yet another brief in hope that on Tuesday, when the reconsideration motion is heard, my client -- finally -- will be released.

This is an open thread.

Added: A little more explanation for those who are interested: In federal court, when a defendant is charged with a drug felony carrying a possible penalty of ten years or more in prison, he is presumed to be both a flight risk and a danger to the community and at the Government's request, will be detained without bail pending trial, unless at the hearing the defendant produces evidence to overcome the presumption.

In cases like this one, with lots of defendants and dozens of wiretaps, it will take more than a year to get to trial. So bail is a very big deal.

< U.S. Expands Expands Iraqi Visa Program Tenfold | McCain Courts the Dalai Lama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Late Night: I Shall Be Released | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bail hearing (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by arguewithmydad com on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:41:40 PM EST

Good luck with the brief and your argument on Tuesday and congratulations on your initial victory. It is an uphill battle in that kind of case to get bail.

Keep up the fight Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:50:02 PM EST

Republican VP Talk Again! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by mmc9431 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:59:31 AM EST

This from Politico:

"Choosing someone like [Veneman] doesn't hurt you with the Democrats. It just doesn't hurt you. But it helps you with Independents and Republicans."

I can't believe they they really think a Republican woman on the ticket would help. He's already in trouble with too many Dem's to try and pull this.

That s*cks (none / 0) (#2)
by Valhalla on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:43:17 PM EST

for both you and your client.

Since it's for reconsideration, do you have to come up with a lot of new arguments, or can you use the ones that won the original hearing? (or I guess the question is whether the govt came up with new arguments in their 4:55 motion).

Good luck!

: It starts from scratch (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST

While the Judge could consider the evidence and arguments at the first hearing (although unless I ask for a continuance I don't know how since there won't be a transcript because there's not enough time) he's not bound by the Magistrate's ruling and makes his own findings and ruling. The Government can, but does not have to present new or more evidence. It can argue the same thing again, with the added benefit of having had five days to better refute my arguments.

Jeralyn I know you (none / 0) (#5)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST

probably have already answered this before but why don't I ever see you on TV anymore?

you rock, grrl (none / 0) (#6)
by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:21:11 PM EST

That's why we don't see you on tv.
Been there, happy weekend to you. Its Life's work.

John Edwards - surprising (none / 0) (#7)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:17:03 AM EST

Never would have expected it, but his recent trouble doesn't sound innocent. Seen coming out of a female's (not Elizabeth's) hotel room and then dashing into a bathroom to hide out for 15 minutes from the paparazzi cameras while he waited for the hotel security assistance he called for to get him out of the hotel without photos being taken.

I guess we can count him out for the VP position.

: I went to the National Enquirer website tonight (none / 0) (#9)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:55:23 AM EST

and read what they had up. It sure sounds like it's more than nothing.
Also, they have a blurb on the side that says that they will pay for information. I knew they did this but I'm surprised to see it advertised on their website. Typically what happens is that "someone" (like a Linda Tripp or someone who's actually involved) will sell the story to the Enquirer. Once someone comes forward, the Enquirer has to do the research to see if the story checks out so they don't end up being guilty of libel. (They can be sued, but they don't want to end up losing because that will cost them bucks. Companies like this have First Amendment lawyers on payroll.)
Anyway, it sure sounds like they have a story. I hate to believe it about John Edwards because I thought he was above all that -- but it's spreading to the mainstream media and it doesn't look good. Pray for Elizabeth Edwards because I think this is the last thing in the world she needs to deal with. (Although, I have to admit, at least it's a heterosexual affair. I'd feel even sorrier for her if he'd been having a homosexual affair. How can you "explain away/forgive & forget" one of those?)

Medical MJ Provider Trial (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:38:02 AM EST

A highly anticipated trial involving conflicting marijuana laws got underway Friday in Los Angeles federal court with a prosecutor painting the owner of a Morro Bay medicinal marijuana store as a brazen drug trafficker who sold dope to teenagers and toted around a backpack stuffed with cash.
Defense attorneys struggled to provide context for their client's alleged crimes after being barred by the judge from mentioning the phrase "medical marijuana."
[snip]
But one of Lynch's lawyers hinted during opening statements that Lynch had sought -- and presumably received -- approval from an official with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration before he set up shop. If they are able to convince U.S. District Judge George Wu that there is a sufficient basis for mounting such a quasi-entrapment defense, they may be allowed to present evidence that Lynch believed he was operating within the law, which legal experts said would likely make him more sympathetic to jurors.

LA Times

I saw my first "Anti-Obama" tv ads today (none / 0) (#10)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:05:35 AM EST

One of them was "Both ways Barack" (or something like that). It said he wasn't a flip-flopper because he wanted to have it both ways. He's For and Against Gun Control and a bunch of other things. He's a For and Against kind of guy.

It wasn't a bad ad because it was true -- he does seem to want to have it both ways.

: There are advantages (none / 0) (#15)
by stxabuela on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:33:18 AM EST

to living in an uncontested state. Only in October are we inundated with political ads.

I'm starting to think, just judging (none / 0) (#11)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:10:55 AM EST

by the recent polls and the news, John McCain's best advertising is Barack Obama himself.

I mean, Obama goes on this World tour and McCain's poll numbers go up. Obama speaks and McCain's poll numbers go up.

It seems to me, if McCain would just shut up, Barack Obama could win the election for him. Obama makes these big worldly gestures and McCain just kicks him in the ankles a little -- and McCain's poll numbers go up. Too funny!

Obama is already costing us? (none / 0) (#12)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:24:54 AM EST

Get that hook! Pull him off the stage!

Secret Service needs more money to guard Obama and McCain

Why does Obama need to move to an open stadium? What a waste of money!!!!!!

This is a problem I see (none / 0) (#13)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:01:20 AM EST

all around the internet:

Republicans for Obama

The same crowd that elected George W. Bush are now rallying around Obama. These people are idiots! Why are we even allowing them to vote for Obama?! They should be banned from voting for the next 20 years!

I have problems with this too because Obama is supposed to support Democratic values, not Republican values. So why all the Republican support?

I don't want to elect a Democratic candidate that the Republicans are standing solidly behind. To me, that decries what my own party stands for.

On top of all that -- the name calling, the "McSames" and that kind of thing -- those are hallmarks of the Republicans, not the Democrats. It was pretty clear, early on, that Democrats were not the only ones supporting the Democratic candidates.

When was the last time the parties swapped ideals? 100 years ago? 200 years ago? After the Civil War? During Civil Rights? I feel like we are going through another change of party values, where the parties swap places and become what they used to hate.

Good Luck (none / 0) (#16)
by kaleidescope on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:10:05 AM EST

How common is it for a district court judge to overturn a magistrate's determination? Here in the Northern District of California, that almost never happens.

Beautiful song (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST

And I sure wish Rick and Richard were still here.