Even WORSE than I thought!

This article about the abominable sentence imposed on a 19 year old kid by judge Eileen O'Connor

Reveals something even more appalling--the kid had no criminal record. She asked about arrests and he said no--turns out, both arrests were thrown out. Not only has the kid never been to jail before, he's never even been convicted of anything.

This is totally outrageous--and I have some questions...
First, I'd like to know why she is entitled to ask about arrests--they have, in and of themselves no legal significance absent a conviction. Just for asking she should be reported to the committee on judicial conduct. Second, how is the answer contumacious? The dismissal of charges traditionally

Third, how and why did the prosecutor check--and why was he allowed to-- investigating jurors 'on a hunch' isn't legitimate law enforcement purpose. I'm not sure he's even allowed to do this. and he too should be reported to the disciplinary committee.

1 comment:

Bill said...

Is it never proper to ask about arrests? I can see that there are situations in which the potential juror's interactions with the police might be relevant, namely cases in which a police officer is a party, defendant, or witness. Someone who had had unpleasant experience with the police might be biased against police officers, and a person who has been arrested might have negative attitudes toward police even if never charged or convicted.