You really cant make this stuff up. It was not that long ago DA Fox did not file charges on a 50+ round shootout that lead to a death because it was mutual combat.

But they will put you in jail for not showing up to a court preparatory class.

-------------------------------------------

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chi...ailed-113000151.html

The woman was jailed for about three weeks before a judge released her on electronic monitoring

A Chicago woman is taking legal action against the Cook County state’s attorney’s office for having her jailed for weeks after she failed to participate in “trial prep” against the man accused of killing her brother.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Latoya Ware’s brother was fatally shot nearly six years ago outside a house party on the west side of Chicago. The man charged in the killing, Eric Black, was also accused of wounding Emmanuel Fleming in the July 2016 shooting.

Ware, now 20, was present when her brother was slain and common practice in the Cook County criminal justice system is for prosecutors to prep witnesses for trial testimony. Those who don’t comply are thrown in jail, as was the case with Ware.

Ware was subpoenaed to come to Leighton Criminal Court Building for trial prep on Aug. 20 last year. Per the report, the document warned: “YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUBPOENA WILL SUBJECT YOU TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT.”

When she failed to show up as instructed, prosecutors requested that Judge Peggy Chiampas issue a no-bail warrant, which the judge did. Ware was arrested by Chicago police six months later on Feb. 22 and ordered held without bond on a charge of indirect criminal contempt. She was jailed for about three weeks before Judge Chiampas released her on electronic monitoring.

During this time, Ware received another “trial prep” subpoena from prosecutors but her legal team was successful in having it withdrawn. Ware’s original contempt charges were also dismissed.

In a March 4 hearing before Judge Chiampas, assistant public defender Douglas Stoll condemned the “trial prep” process and noted that Ware never refused to testify at the actual trial.
You can do a subpoena to require someone to appear in court,” Stoll said. “Trial prep is a completely other matter. My client has a right to not speak to anybody about this case except when sworn to testify before this court, before a jury, or a judicial hearing.”

At the hearing, it was noted that the issuance of trial prep subpoenas is a regular practice. Chiampas said the subpoena was valid and that Ware knew the consequences of not appearing as she’d been informed of them multiple times.

“All Ms. Latoya Ware had to do was get in contact with the state, give them a heads-up. She didn’t do that,” the judge said.

On Tuesday, Ware finally testified in Black’s murder trial. She filed a federal lawsuit against the Cook County state’s attorney’s office the following day in U.S. District Court alleging that “prosecutors have been systematically abusing the subpoena process by threatening witnesses with contempt and jail time if they fail to comply,” per the Tribune.

Ware wants an order prohibiting “trial prep” subpoenas and/or barring the state’s attorney’s office from “effectuating arrests based on alleged noncompliance” with such subpoenas. She is also seeking monetary damages.

“(Ware) is not the only victim of the Cook County state’s attorney’s illegal practice of issuing fake subpoenas for court dates that do not exist,” the suit states, “Rather, the practice is widespread and routine and has been for many years.”

If you fail to comply with a subpoena ,you are going to have a bad day. If you show your ass about it things get worse. Just my take on it.

But written into all that is that they have no right to make you come to the prep-case which is where they want to find out what you are going to say later under oath and try and get you to testify the way they want you to.

“You can do a subpoena to require someone to appear in court,” Stoll said. “Trial prep is a completely other matter. My client has a right to not speak to anybody about this case except when sworn to testify before this court, before a jury, or a judicial hearing.”

Maybe the state just wants to make sure the case is as airtight as possible but how can someone be subpoenaed for what is not an essential part of the process? After 30 years in the federal court system, I see this as a mockery of the justice system at large, not to mention a violation of due process. They wanted to rehearse their case- that does NOT warrant throwing someone in the clink for simply showing up on the day of the trial and giving the facts as they are required to do.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
“You can do a subpoena to require someone to appear in court,” Stoll said. “Trial prep is a completely other matter. My client has a right to not speak to anybody about this case except when sworn to testify before this court, before a jury, or a judicial hearing.”

Maybe the state just wants to make sure the case is as airtight as possible but how can someone be subpoenaed for what is not an essential part of the process? After 30 years in the federal court system, I see this as a mockery of the justice system at large, not to mention a violation of due process. They wanted to rehearse their case- that does NOT warrant throwing someone in the clink for simply showing up on the day of the trial and giving the facts as they are required to do.

I understand the DA wanting to do their homework but placing some in jail for not helping you study is wrong.

DA: Would you like to come in to talk about the case?
Me: Nope.

DA: Can I call you to talk about the case?
Me: Nope.

DA: Can I send you a questionnaire about the case?
Me: Nope.

DA: Ok. See you at the court date. Hope your brothers killer doesnt get off.
Me: Ok.

I'm sure that coaching witnesses happens all the time on both sides of a trial, but for one side to have the power to compel this seems unbalanced. Perhaps this perspective is at least partially responsible for the paucity of respect shown toward the legal system, and by extension, the law itself by some segments of the populace?

I don't have a problem with this case. I do have a problem with issuing subpoenas for incorrect dates. Obviously, the judge agreed.

My take on this type of BS is that the DA just trying to get all of their ducks in line so as not to be caught off guard during the actual trial proceedings by asking questions that they do not already know the answers to..... Also maybe trying to make sure that the witness gives the answer that they want and if something different is given during the trial then going after the witness for changing their story . ...... drill sgt.