Just saw on TV! Absolutely ridiculous!!!!!! Take a look! Here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290300,00.html And here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1869969/posts "Prosecutor Appeals After Judge Drops Rape Charges Against Liberian Over Lack of Interpreter ROCKVILLE, Md. — The prosecutor in the case of a Liberian native charged with repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl said Monday that he is filing an appeal of a controversial judge's ruling that dismissed all charges because an interpreter who spoke the suspect's rare West African dialect could not be found. Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy called the ruling last Tuesday by Judge Katherine Savage "improper," adding that his office has "requested that an appeal be taken to reverse the court's order." Savage ruled on July 17 that Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian who received asylum in the U.S. and attended high school and community college here, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. Linguists estimate that only 100,000 people speak Vai." He has been in the US for years! He went to high school and college!! And he supposedly cannot speak english!?!!? Does that judge have a brain!? Or maybe GWB is a zombie that ate the brain of most americans somehow!?!?!? WTF!?!?!?!?!
and how does that particular case affect you? a child is raped every minute all around the world, and nothing is being done about it
in england this is common, we always have cases of child rapists who dont go to jail even though mass evidence is against them. some rapists have even admitted raping the little girls and got let off. this is one reason that i hate the whole legal system and government as a whole. every single year in england child rapists get let off or only a 2-3 year jail sentence, it happens all of the time. but when a teenager has stolen something he goes to jail for years. they bully our working class and let the middle class off. the whole system is corrupt and bias. and i personaly think its racial alot of the time. its usualy white middle class men who ape children that get let off. and my friend recently got a 10 year jail sentence for defending his child and girlfriend. he was on his own at home with his child and the mother. 4-5 racist white guys tried to knock his door down and were shoutiong things like "we are going to fuck you up nigger" he got a baseball bat type weapon or soem wooden thing and beat them all down. 2 were seriously injured and 1 guy went into a coma and might still die. but he was defending his home, yet he goes to jail for 10 years. and then white guys rape little girls who are under 10, they even admit to doing it and the judge lets them go free. the system is disgusting, and i have seen police beat up school girls before (black girls, white police) and they walk away with a formal warning. and my firnd has punched a policeman before and went to jail for 3 years. peace. peace, peace.
Due Process isn't always a happy outcome According to FOX News, the problem is with the U.S. Constitution. I take no pleasure in pointing out a fact that happens to be ironic: Judge Savage's biggest fault, it seems, was not being enough of a judicial activist. That is, she was too much of a strict constitutionalist in this particular ruling. Still, circuit court clerk Loretta Knight did find four Vai speakers to translate for Kanneh. Three had to withdraw for various reasons. But the state's attorney said today an interpreter was available for trial. But the judge ruled last week it was too late. Judge Savage said quote, "this is one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in a long time." And went on to say, quote, "in spite of Herculean efforts on the part of the state's attorney, time has become the enemy. It's the defendant who holds speedy trial rights." Prosecutors say that is not their fault. (FOXNews.com) • • • A review by FOX News of the audio from that hearing shows, however, that an interpreter was present throughout the entire court proceeding, during which time Kanneh's lawyer, Theresa Chernosky, argued that her client had not been able to get a good job because of unresolved rape charges. Chernosky is heard also telling Savage that her client works at a gas station, and has not signed up for school because of the uncertainty about his future. The translator can be heard throughout the entire hearing. Savage, however, notes to that the events in the case were "unforeseeable, truly difficult in terms of the interpreter issue." She then tells the court that "in spite of herculean efforts on the part of the state's attorney ... time has become the enemy." "What we come back to, then ... too much time has passed, is that it's the defendant who hold speedy trial rights." The Washington Post reported, however, that Kanneh had waived his rights to a speedy trial. Why Savage dismissed the case when records indicate an interpreter had been sworn is just one of several questions raised by an examination of records by FOXNews.com. (FOXNews.com) • • • Kanneh spent one night in jail and was released on a $10,000 bond with the restriction that he have no contact with minors. He later waived his right to a speedy trial -- in Maryland, defendants have a right to be tried within 180 days following an indictment -- because the defense wanted time to conduct its own analysis of DNA evidence. That waiver was effective only until the next trial date, Chernosky argued in court. The trial date was extended repeatedly as the state and the defense argued over whether Kanneh needed an interpreter and whether he understood the legal proceedings. The state noted that Kanneh attended high school and community college in Montgomery and spoke to detectives in English. The defense insisted that he needed an interpreter to fully understand the proceedings. The matter was resolved after a court-appointed psychiatrist who evaluated Kanneh recommended that an interpreter be appointed. Judges who handled subsequent hearings heeded that advice. The first interpreter stormed out of the courtroom in tears because she found the facts of the case disturbing. A second interpreter was rejected for faulty work. After calling the Liberian Embassy and exhausting other avenues, the clerk's office contacted the administrator of the state's court interpreter program in Annapolis. He located a third Vai interpreter, but at the last minute, that person had to tend to a family emergency. In recent weeks, court officials had found a suitable interpreter who could have assisted in the trial, but it was too late. Earlier this month, Chernosky filed a motion seeking to have the indictment dismissed, arguing that Kanneh's right to a speedy trial had been violated. "This delay is just too long," she argued in court. "The reasons for the delay are not the defendant's fault." (Londoño, Washington Post) To the other, this is probably why so many Americans don't seem to like the idea of due process.
The sad truth is that the Bill of Rights, that we claim to revere contains quite a number of rules that protect rogues. The rules against unreasonable search and seizure are more often applied to the benefit of criminals than they are to the benefit of honest, law-abiding folk. The rule against self-incrimination only applies when you have a reasonable chance of incriminating yourself. The criminal procedural rules enshrined in the constitution are most often the refuge of scumbags. In this case, the law which entitled the man to a speedy trial seems to have been violated (as three years is not that "speedy" imo). The relevant part of the sixth amendment says only, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...." There is no clause stating, in effect, "except where the delay is the result of the accused's not knowing English" or "except where the delay is not the prosecution's fault." I'm also a little dubious of the notion that the defendant "waived" his right to a speedy trial. The defendant might have conditionally waived it at one point for a particular reason, but I cannot imagine that he ever offered a blanket waiver for all time and without regard to the circumstances. If the defense requests a delay in the trial to prepare, then that's an implied "waiver," but once the defense is ready, the clock starts ticking again. How bad would the defense counsel have to be to offer up an unconditional, permanent waiver of the defendant's right so that the State can spend several years looking for a translator? The more serious issue to me is whether the man actually understands English (as some reports suggest he does), but I can't imagine that if his command of the language is in fact adequate the court would bother going through this rigamarole.
I think its worth having civil liberties protected even if it means that a few people fall through the cracks. When its a case of this magnitude, its not likely to be ignored anyway.
That sounds all wonderful and ideal, but what about the civil liberties of the little 7-yr old girl who was molested? ...and what of the next little girl he decides to molest? Is his civil liberties more important, somehow, than the civil liberties of that one little girl ...and possible a few future little girls? What does that mean? What won't be ignored? Baron Max
Seems obvious to me. Well, we could round up the prosecutors and police investigators who blew it, line them up against the wall, and summarily execute them. Of course, there are probably more decent, civilized, and legal ways to hold them responsible. In this specific case, perhaps Maryland's past legislators and a governor are to blame. The Bill of Rights guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial. The interpretation of "speedy trial" in question is apparently a statute of the State of Maryland.
All of you seem to have made up your minds that the defendant is guilty. There was no trial, so you can't have been influenced by the verdict. There was no white Bronco sashaying down the freeway with twelve news helicopters following it, no glove as damning evidence, no preposterous alibis to make you doubt the judgment of the jury as in one famous case. I live within walking distance of the Rockville city limits and even I haven't seen or heard enough specific details of this case to form an judgment. So on what do you all base your certainty that this guy is guilty? That he was arrested? Oh puhleeeaze! This is the D.C. metropolitan area. The cops are as inept and as racist as anywhere in the country. Within the last 18 months two cops in this region have murdered unarmed nonviolent citizens accused only of misdemeanors, claimed "self defense" in one case and "it went off by accident" in the other--and got away with it and are still cops! Another was so stupid that he tried to chase a motorcycle around the Beltway in rush hour--in a car--and killed two people in the resulting crash. The entire government and police force of next-door Prince George's County is about to collapse from corruption. The D.A. in a nearby state prosecuted an entire sports team for a bogus rape just to make a name for himself and the only reason the kids got off was they were white and the alleged victim was black. That a child accused him? Again, oh puhleeeaze! We live in an infantocracy. All a kid has to do is point his finger at you and whisper a few words to someone in authority, and you'll spend the rest of your life looking for a place to live where nobody knows you--even if you're acquitted. The South Park episode in which all the kids got all the adults thrown in jail by saying "they molestered us"--they didn't even know what the word means or how to say it--is not as far-fetched as one would hope. That he's protesting his innocence and using every legal trick available to get off without a trial? Hey, I've served on several juries and I know how they work. I would use every legal trick available to get off without a trial too. Here's this sweet little angel over here whose own record we are not allowed to investigate to see how often she lies to grownups who has been coached by experts to look pathetic and honest, and here's this dark-skinned immigrant over here looking all apprehensive and nervous who can't even speak our language. (I can see none of you has had to interview job applicants since you believe that making it through the American educational system is proof that you are fluent in English.) I notice that Seeker didn't even bother with the formality of putting the word "Accused" or "Alleged" in the title of the thread. He's made his mind up and he doesn't need to be confused by any facts beyond what he's got from FAUX NEWS. He is as positive that this man is guilty as the illiterati over in the Religion subforum are positive that the world was created in six days. And you all wonder why we need to have our civil rights enshrined? With neighbors like you?
An interesting accusation. Could it be that his comprehension of English presents a challenge to his understanding the proceedings? The court-appointed psychiatrist seemed to think so.
This is not a constitutional issue at all. It's pure bullshit. No where in the constitution does it say the state must provide intrepreters. If this guy had commited this crime in 1790, right after the constitution was ratified, he'd have been convicted and hanged in short order whether he spoke english or not. If you live in the US you should speak English. It should not be incumnent on the rest of us to accomodate you. If you rape children, and you don't speak English, tough. Complete, utter, bullshit. A total perversion of justice. If I were a relative of the victim, I'd kill this bastard and then ask for an interpreter who speaks Eteocretan. Since that language has been extinct for 2,000 years, I'd also get off scot free.
You can't use character witnesses to prosecute or defend because it's subjective and it's unrelated to a crime. Their are plenty of people who use it and it's unfair. The little girl might lie about other things but may not be lying about this crime. Also, there have been plenty of people who have used someone's lifestyle, socioeconomic status, religion or absence thereof. I've seen ridiculous investigators be swayed by the negative portrayal or other aspect of an individual's life when it was entirely unrelated to whether a specific crime occured such as a someone who has a drug-related problem or mental issues therefore must be not credible as a victim. That goes for both the defense and prosecution. The real truth and issue is whether they are really guilty or not. Unfortunately without evidence, the guilty can and will go free because it has to abide by the integrity of the justice system to work. On the other hand, if the law is unable to bring justice and you are personally involved and know the facts you could take the law into your own hands if you are willing to live with the consequences. You have to weigh the pros and cons.
Nice attitude. Welcome to the Planet earth. We all have to live together, why not help make it a better place?
the tv media has an ability to skew the reality of things. I am sure the real reason he was let go is because there was no proof he did it.
