Three years speedy enough?
By now I’m sure all of you have heard about the Judge that dismissed charges of sexual assault filed against Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian immigrant who was granted asylum in the US, because the State took three years to prosecute. The sticking point was the inability to find a suitable interpreter – one who spoke the dialect “Vai”.
After three years, the judge said enough is enough and dismissed the charges. As details emerged, it became clear that interpreters had been found and used, but one couldn’t handle the facts, another had to leave for a family emergency and one was located on the day the dismissal was issued.
Not surprisingly, the blogosphere (and other places) is full of criticism for the judge. Naturally, I don’t see it that way. However severe the charges may be against him, the bottom line remains that someone was unable to locate an interpreter for three whole years.
If you do not think that the judge was right in dismissing the charges, then you are in favor of indefinite detentions while the State lethargically crawls ahead with its prosecutions.
There is a reason why all states have enacted Speedy Trial statutes (in fact, some have made it part of their Constitutions) and that is to protect against the awesome power of the state to charge and detain individuals for indefinite periods of time while they go about collecting their evidence.
Anyway, back to the story. What made me chuckle was this quote from the prosecutor:
In arguing to save the case, Assistant State’s Attorney Maura Lynch said that dismissing the indictment “after all the efforts the state has made to accommodate the defendant would be fundamentally unfair.”
It really is quite amusing that the State views fundamental Constitutional rights as “accommodating the defendant”. If I had even the slightest inkling that my client was unable to fully comprehend the scope of the legal proceedings against him, I would fight tooth and nail until I was sure that he was able to understanding what was going on.
Thoughts?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on July 23, 2007 at 6:27 pm, and is filed under criminal law principles, sex offenders, sixth amendment. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
Is it a fundamental right that a person be provided with an interpreter? Moreover, most speedy trial statutes require that the defendant move for a speedy trial, and many have exceptions. I am not an expert in Maryland criminal procedure, are you?
Moreover, Gideon, your condescension is disgusting. People ought to be outraged–especially since evidence is coming to light that this guy speaks English.
I am sure that you would fight tooth and nail for your client. That’s your job.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3019"]Is it a fundamental right that a person be provided with an interpreter? Moreover, most speedy trial statutes require that the defendant move for a speedy trial, and many have exceptions. I am not an expert in Maryland criminal procedure, are you?</p><br />
<p>Moreover, Gideon, your condescension is disgusting. People ought to be outraged–especially since evidence is coming to light that this guy speaks English.</p><br />
<p>I am sure that you would fight tooth and nail for your client. That’s your job.[/quote]
The fundamental right is that the defendant be aware of the charges against and be able to assist in his own defense. If he is unable to understand the proceedings against him, then he cannot assist in his own defense. That’s the fundamental right.
Yes, most speedy trial statutes are written from the point of view of the defendant. In this case, the defendant filed an equivalent speedy trial motion; the grounds being the same that would support any such speedy trial motion – excessive delay in prosecution.
There is a difference between speaking English and understanding the proceedings. Just because an individual speaks English (how proficiently, we do not know), doesn’t mean that he is capable of comprehending legal terms and the meanings of legal proceedings.
The incompetency standard is a nice corollary here – whether the individual has the capacity (be it mental or linguistic) to understand the proceedings.
Condescending? Perhaps. Amused and frustrated? More so.
about 4 years ago
Somehow I doubt that this turkey’s knowledge of English is so limited that he did not understand the nature of the charges against him or could not assist in his own defense. In any event, his asylum should be revoked and he should be shipped back to Liberia. I am sure that the authorities there have little patience for child rapists. Perhaps, he’ll have wished he got his trial here. One can only hope.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3023"]Somehow I doubt that this turkey’s knowledge of English is so limited that he did not understand the nature of the charges against him or could not assist in his own defense. In any event, his asylum should be revoked and he should be shipped back to Liberia. I am sure that the authorities there have little patience for child rapists. Perhaps, he’ll have wished he got his trial here. One can only hope.[/quote]
). However, I did acknowledge in my post that someone messed up big time here.
I will pass no judgment on whether he is guilty or not (what did you expect? this is a pd blog
about 4 years ago
Sean,
Let’s suppose you speak a dialect shared by a few thousand people in the States and you land yourself in Venezuela. You speak Spanish well enough. But you probably haven’t taken Legal Spanish 101 and, alas, without an interpreter you are lost.
This happens all the time in criminal cases. Just yesterday someone in my office represented a client who needed an interpreter to understand legal proceedings but addressed the judge in English in court.
You sound like you have a problem with the presumption of innocence, Sean. Maybe you would find Liberia’s justice system agreeable?
Gideon,
The “it is unfair” argument is used by the Justice Department over here with abandon. With only one Democratic appointment in this district, it is even treated with sympathy. That whiny refrain is often accompanied by “this is unacceptable,” “your honor this is a wake not a funeral” (in response to request to attend mother’s funeral for defendant on bail), etc. Yet just last month during a trial they attempted to introduce evidence that they literally handed over at 6 p.m. on friday for a trial set for monday at 10 a.m. Naturally, it was excluded.
about 4 years ago
That last post was me. Must have blanked when typing in poster info.