Accused Child Rapist Freed for Lack of Translator Speaks English After All?
Hot Air says he does, and has video from FOX News to prove it.
(My post on this from last night is here.)
UPDATE: I should have noted that I posted the above from a Treo and hadn’t seen the video. I’ll watch it tonight. Commenters are saying that the video does not depict the suspect speaking; it’s a news report relating a producer’s conversation, with quotes. This is proof of a sort, but of course is not as conclusive as hearing the defendant on the video would be.
If he was freed, does that mean charges can’t be re-filed?
If he has a fluent grasp of English, and played that he didn’t, would that allow for re-instating charges if the statute of limitations has run out?
Seriously, I’d ask how your peers let this one slip by, but I’m afraid you’d tell me…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/23/2007 @ 7:41 amIt’s my memory from law school that “jeopardy” (for double jeopardy purposes) does not “attach” until the first witness is sworn in.
MJ (890cbf) — 7/23/2007 @ 7:43 amMJ –
Rick Wilcox (bb4b76) — 7/23/2007 @ 7:47 amWikipedia, always-accurate keeper of all knowledge (*wink wink*)agrees with you for non-jury trials, but says that for jury trials it applies when the jury and alternates are impaneled and sworn in.
Rick’s bit about impaneled jurors sounds familiar from somewhere…
And it would be unlikely they had done so in this case.
Nail his ass to the wall, Pat!
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/23/2007 @ 7:59 amHot Air says he does, and has video from FOX News to prove it.
A FoxNews producer told a reporter – who in turn told an on-air anchor – that a man they purport to be the defendant spoke English to the producer on the phone. Which “proves” that Hot Air says he speaks it.
Technically.
No way this case should have been tossed and I share the outrage, but any “proof” from Fox News is illusory.
steve (1c66cc) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:07 amWell, illusory so far. I’d wager that LOTS of people are working to get this guy on tape…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:08 amWould some law dog here puleeze provide answers:
1) whether the judge is justified in releasing him because of delays?
2) if an interpreter was deemed necessary and the snafus occurred doesn’t the good faith effort negate the time frame of a speedy trial? and,
“In recent weeks court officials had found a suitable interpreter, but Savage ruled that too much time had already passed.”…
3) Does this negate the charges he faced? Because of extenuating circumstances and the time delay, are the charges nullified? Will charges be reinstated, is there a statute of limitations?
Thank you.
Dana (657f90) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:08 amSteve – I agree. We should not look to FoxNews for proof. We should rely on unnamed war correspondents, Huffington Post reporters, Chicago Sun Times reporters, Jason Blair, Dan Rather, the Daily Show, and the Deans of Truthiness, Michael Moore and Keith Olberman.
JD (a04d17) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:15 amJD, how did you manage to type that without vomiting?
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:18 amC’mon, knuckleheads. This just vindicates what we always say, it’s better that a hundred guilty men* go free, than an innocent man be punished.
*Who invoke civil rights laws by making questionable assertions of no-speaky-inglays…
Some times bad facts make bad laws; other times, bad laws make for bad facts. Gotta love the iron-fisted enforcement of LEP standards.
Al Maviva (89d0b6) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:19 amScott, I threw up in the back of my mouth a few times.
JD (a04d17) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:21 amThere wasn’t any question he spoke some English; the question was how well. Probably plenty well enough to stand trial in English, but the question is more subtle than the Fox News and Hot Air version. Fancy that.
Andrew J. Lazarus (6ee7c5) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:47 amI hinted at that…
It’s very possible he has “servicable” english, but wouldn’t be able to follow a lot of legal stuff…
It’s equally possible that he’s 100% fluent, and speaks it with a slight british accent…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:51 amThese are the same people that go ape-shit when the discussion of English as the official language comes up. He had sufficient functional knowledge of English to make it out of high school and community college. This is either an indictment of the eductional system for allowing a student to make it that far without understanding English, or an indictment of the over-the-top PC mindset that gives rise to decisions like this.
JD (a04d17) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:00 amIF THIS COUNTRY DOESNT PULL ITS HEAD FIRMLY OUT OF ITS ASS SOON YOU MARK MY WORDS WE WILL ALL BE SINGING A NATIONAL ANTHEM THAT DOESNT START WITH OH SAY CAN YOU SEE!!! WAKE UP AMERICA AND MOST OF ALL WAKE UP JUDICIAL SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Douglas (5ddb68) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:10 am#8, A Fox News report providing that degree of “proof” is no better than the citations you offer as industry lapses.
The suspect probably speaks English better than I do. But it isn’t made evident in the piece.
steve (1c66cc) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:29 amIndustry lapses? Those are the “go-to” people for the Left. Sure, they did not run an audio tape of him speaking English, but to you, their not playing that appears to be proof that it did not happen. The available evidence, since he graduated high school and community college, and spoke to the detectives in English, suggest that he has sufficent command of English. If you disagree, that is fine. But the available information would make your disagreement look rather silly.
JD (a04d17) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:41 amBut the available information would make your disagreement look rather silly.
“Hot Air has the video to prove it” must mean something else, then.
steve (1c66cc) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:48 am…and with this, I have no disagreement.
I once got out of a well-deserved traffic ticket overseas when the cop didn’t speak any English and I didn’t mention that I understood the local language pretty well, and everyone else in the car understood it even better. (Later I got a much less deserved ticket from a cop who was bilingual. I like cosmic justice.)
Andrew J. Lazarus (6ee7c5) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:58 amJD # 17:
The available evidence, since he graduated high school and community college
I think the AP article said he attended high school and community college. Maybe you know of another source that says he graduated.
Otherwise, there is a difference.
skylark (31b6e0) — 7/23/2007 @ 11:39 amI haven’t gone through the entire thread, but after reading your “update” this is the kind of post you would ream the L.A. Times for printing.
nosh (de5a83) — 7/23/2007 @ 12:03 pmskylark #20
great unknown (c2440f) — 7/23/2007 @ 12:43 pmOne may reasonably assume that if he attended community college, he graduated high school.
Granted, graduating high school is not a guarantee of competence in English, but using that reasoning, a large number of defendents – native-born – could claim the need for translators.
Thank you, GU. I assumed that since he attended community college, that he graduated from high school. If I implied that he graduated college, my bad. Regardless, given the above, and that all of the investigation and interviews were conducted in English, this just seems like some pop psych feel good idea gone horribly awry, and a Judge unwilling to put the brakes to it.
JD (26b504) — 7/23/2007 @ 1:01 pmIt’s amazing what you can get away with when you just repeat “No speaky dee engee” over and over to a shrink.
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/23/2007 @ 1:04 pmGreta Van Sustern just weighed in and laid the responsibility at the feet of the prosecutor for failing to secure an interpreter. If 3 or 4 dropped out, then it was incumbent upon them to do whatever was necessary to get one.
And she says that it is not a judge’s repsonsibility to make phone calls trying to find a interpreter especially after 3 years of waiting.
Dana (4666aa) — 7/23/2007 @ 4:19 pmI’m not sure whose responsibility it is, although it seems to me that it *should* be the judge’s responsibility.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 7/23/2007 @ 4:22 pmWell, I guess many native born Americans who graduated HS could claim they don’t understand English well enough to understand what goes on in a courtroom. Why not? And good luck finding a translator….not many can translate Dumbass.
How the HELL do you graduate HS with such limited English skills?
Peter Wilson (d63e2b) — 7/23/2007 @ 4:47 pm*I* don’t understand enough English to understand what goes on in a court room. That’s why *I* hire my OWN interpreter.
I call him my lawyer. He’s very good.
To answer your question Peter, I would suspect it’s the same way someone could graduate HS without being able to use fractions, name one books my Mark Twain or one play by Shakespear, or find entire continents on a map.
Many teachers have ceased to care, or are no longer able to keep up with class size, failures to educate at earlier grades, or extreme lack of support from home.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 7/23/2007 @ 5:23 pmThere likely was a hearing, on competence generally and his ability to speak English both. A psychiatrist was appointed by the court who testified to his lack if understanding of English.
This is nothing unique. The system gets gamed like this all the time. In the beginning, the defense moves for continuances. After a while, the prosecution cannot find its witnesses, so it moves for continuances. A little while later, the case is untriable. Some judges get into the act, too. It does not look good for judges to have cases for too long on their calendars. So they transfer them out to another judge. And that judge to another judge. (Like it seems what happened in this case).
In any case, under any standard, three years is not a “speedy trial”. After that long it’s just as likely that the state would not have been able to fairly make its case as well as the defendant.
nk (37689a) — 7/23/2007 @ 6:46 pmnk, if I remember correctly, is this why you were a defense attorney?
I cannot stomach the idea of supposedly having the responsibility to pursue such games in the interest of a client who apparently is a pedophile. (The evidence says so, which is why gamesmanship is called into play).
[I commented on the other thread, maybe the psychiatrist wanted a translator because he/she had difficulty ascertaining the mental/psych status of the defendant, e.g., was he psychotic or did he “just have some funny ideas”?]
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2007 @ 7:02 pmnk, if I remember correctly, is this why you were a defense attorney?
Emphasis on the past tense? But that is really only a question of personal sensibility. A professional does not wonder “why” — he thinks “how”. I have participated in the defense of several “child molesters” and although I would not do it now there was no question of my professionalism or zealousness in their defense then.
nk (37689a) — 7/23/2007 @ 7:55 pmCan somebody explain why this is not the defense attorney’s responsibility?
Truth (26b504) — 7/23/2007 @ 8:32 pmnk-
By no means am I questioning your professionalism, zealousness, and especially your personal integrity.
I was trying to say that a system that requires one to “zealously” work for the non-conviction of a dangerous criminal is a system that I would find it hard to comply with. Of course, we do have what we have. Wishing we had a system where “both sides” were working to clarify truth and find a just resolution instead of the adversarial model we have doesn’t really help the situation in the present.
That is why I emphasized the past tense. Did your sense of responsibility to fulfill the requirements of the position conflict with your sensibilities/convictions regarding the appropriateness of working for the release of such people. My original comment was intended for clarity and meant as a compliment more than anything. If more people were willing to give voice and act on such person principles, maybe common sense would prevail a little more- not in a haphazard way, but by way of meaningful reforms.
Yes, a professional thinks “how” not “why”, once they have agreed to the position. The “why” is up front, if one thinks the profession of choice is a “good” one.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2007 @ 5:01 amMy original comment was intended for clarity and meant as a compliment more than anything.
That’s how I took it, MD in Philly. Thank you.
If I may clarify, by “personal sensibility” I meant that my choice not to do it anymore was not an implicit condemnation of the system or of other criminal defense attorneys.
I am not very good at philosophical discussions of the law because I do not believe it a subject that lends itself to much intellectualism. It is really a practical thing — a tool for the functioning of society. In practice, a process which if followed is likely to produce a correct result but because of the human variables not guaranteed to do so in every case.
As for adverserial vs. inquisitorial — society shapes the law and the law shapes society. If we had a different legal system we would be a different country. I think we have a very good legal system but like all other human creations not a perfect one.
nk (37689a) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:22 amThe foxnews article from hotair is interesting. The court-appointed psych said the defendant spoke English well. The court records note an interpreter was sworn that last day. It also notes that Mama Kanneh was also charged with sex abuse charges and intimidating witnesses who were going to testify against her or her son.
This is why the case fell apart, IMHO: intimidation, delay tactics, defendants who know the system only too well.
Patricia (824fa1) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:56 amReasons why judges like this one should be removed from the bench and bilingiualism should be ended
krazy kagu (044dd0) — 7/24/2007 @ 10:55 amnk #31, I have to assume you were commenting on the ethics of the legal profession with this:
I am an engineer by profession – if someone were to ask me to build a device to destroy a structure such as a dam, I could – but I would most certainly ask “why”.
I suppose if I were a defendant, I would want a lawyer at my disposal who would not ask “why” – but this curious phillp of the legal profession is probably why many of us consider lawyers as untrustworthy, mercenary and borderline disreputable.
In a small way I am sorry to deliberately insult the practice of the law (as I do amire the construction of well-crafted logic), but I truely think it is for the best to treat the profession as something close to prostitution – not something we should encourage the young to become, and certainly not a profession worthy of admiration.
JSinAZ (e71b0b) — 7/24/2007 @ 6:15 pmI am an engineer by profession – if someone were to ask me to build a device to destroy a structure such as a dam, I could – but I would most certainly ask “why”.
Apples and oranges. If somebody were to ask me to subborn perjury or to present falsified evidence I would not even ask “why”, I would say “no”. But if somebody were to ask me to do my best to keep him out of prison I would within the bounds of the law. As MD in Philly pointed out in an earlier comment, the law provides the “why”.
And as for “prostitution” … I suppose that every engineer who builds a prison is forever vigilant thereafter that no innocent man is kept in it; and every engineer who builds a bridge makes sure that no criminal crosses it to commit a crime; and no car has ever been instrumental in the death of an innocent person because no engineer would ever be so irresponsible as to design such a thing?
nk (37689a) — 7/24/2007 @ 6:31 pmP.S. In a small way I am sorry to deliberately insult the practice of the law (as I do amire the construction of well-crafted logic)
Lawyers may use logic just as everyone else does but the law is not based on it. It is the will of the stronger, tempered by the human virtues of kindness and mercy, and leavened by the likewise human whims and prejudices of the times.
nk (37689a) — 7/24/2007 @ 6:38 pmI was with you, nk, right up to that kindness and mercy part …
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/24/2007 @ 6:57 pmRobin,
Please explain.
nk (37689a) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:03 pmIt was a joke, nk. Just a joke.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:15 pmLawyers may use logic just as everyone else does but the law is not based on it. It is the will of the stronger, tempered by the human virtues of kindness and mercy, and leavened by the likewise human whims and prejudices of the times.
IMO this statement is not only correct, it’s poetry. Beautifully said.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:20 pmEngineers prostitute themselves constantly. It is, however, not a professional prerequiste. Nor is dissembly, prevarication or the ability to lie with a straight face, all of which are part of the tasty leavening brought to us by the modern practice of the law.
I am quite serious when I remark that children should be taught that the practice of law, while perhaps lucrative, is a low thing to be shunned.
Mothers, do not let your babies grow up to be lawyers – working in waste-water treatment is a much more noble profession, and while it does have the awful smell in common with the law, at least the product is clean water – which is far more than can be said for the product of lawyers.
JSinAZ (e71b0b) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:25 pmWell one good joke deserves another:
A judge is passing sentence on an elderly habitual criminal. He tells him, “In light of your record, I have no choice but to sentence you to twenty years”.
The defendant pleads: “Your Honor, I’m seventy years old. I can’t do twenty years”.
You can see the judge is moved. He looks at the defendant with pity and with all the comfort he can muster in his voice says: “That’s ok. Just do as much as you can”.
nk (37689a) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:25 pmDRJ #43. Thank you.
nk (37689a) — 7/24/2007 @ 7:27 pmnk, true story, a friend of mine sat on the municipal court bench. One day, he’s taking pleas on some petty crimes, and a defendant pleads guilty. My friend gavels and says “Fine of $100 or 30 days in jail”. The defendant pipes up, “but your honor, I’ve only got twenty-three dollars.”
My friend looks down at him from the bench and says “and how much change?”
JSinAZ, I’ve given similar advice to students asking me about my thoughts on the law as career. But I do try to dress it up a bit more. Just to keep up my reputation.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/24/2007 @ 8:10 pmGU #22:
One may reasonably assume that if he attended community college, he graduated high school.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of people without high school diplomas attending classes at community colleges – including high school students.
Personally, I think if he’d graduated from high school the article would have said so. That seems the reasonable inference to me, but hey that’s just me.
skylark (31b6e0) — 7/25/2007 @ 4:25 pmJSinAZ-
While I was in residency and a good friend was in law school, our version was:
Mamas, make your babies grow up to be cowboys, don’t let them be lawyers and doctors and such…
“If we had a different legal system we would be a different country.” I guess I would wonder if a country with an inquisitorial system might be a less imperfect human endeavor. You’re correct that it is not a very pertinent question, unless founding a new country or doing wholesale Constitutional Amendments.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/25/2007 @ 7:15 pmApparently, he’s been re-arrested prepping to flee.
He’s in custody while the decision to dismiss in appealed.
Story here.
First saw this at Michelle Malkin’s site.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 8/7/2007 @ 9:31 pmDRJ,
I’m updating my template and in the process incorporated your comment #43 into the “Testimonials” on my sidebar.
nk (7c7414) — 9/23/2007 @ 11:32 amI like to read your blog, NK. You have a way with words.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/23/2007 @ 11:41 amLinkee no thinkee, mostly. There are some people, no more than two thousand miles away from where I am, who inform me and challenge me more than I’m inclined to do to myself so I leave comments on their blog.
nk (7c7414) — 9/23/2007 @ 11:47 amAre you kidding? One needn’t be verbose to convey powerful thoughts. Even your titles are well-crafted.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/23/2007 @ 11:52 amDRJ, you’ll turn my head. AND thank you!
nk (7c7414) — 9/23/2007 @ 12:00 pm