Snowdon is a dummy

If there is a lawyer here following this thread...a question:

I have been told that a trial in absentia in the United States can only be had if the defendant was present in court at the beginning of the trial...and later absents himself from the initiated proceedings. I was informed that the Supreme Court ruled that way.

That would seem to preclude a trial in absentia...but I really would like to hear if what I have been told is correct.

I still think everything should be put on hold until every attempt to get Snowden back for trial is exhausted, but I am interested in this particular point.

Talk about begging the question.

Talk about wanting a rigged trial!

To give him the trial that you want the US to give him... It's quite easy to do.

You are positive it is "easy to do?"

There are no Supreme Court cases that say it is more than hard to do...under our constitution, it is impossible to do?

You are positive of that?

Here's what I have been able to determine using Wikipedia:

In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited Rule 43 in the case of Crosby v. United States.[28] The Court unanimously held, in an opinion written by JusticeHarry Blackmun, that Rule 43 does not permit the trial in absentia of a defendant who is absent at the beginning of trial.
This case requires us to decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 permits the trial in absentia of a defendant who absconds prior to trial and is absent at its beginning. We hold that it does not. ...The Rule declares explicitly: "The defendant shall be present . . . at every stage of the trial . . . except as otherwise provided by this rule" (emphasis added). The list of situations in which the trial may proceed without the defendant is marked as exclusive not by the "expression of one" circumstance, but rather by the express use of a limiting phrase. In that respect the language and structure of the Rule could not be more clear."
However, the Crosby Court reiterated an 80-year-old precedent that
Where the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, . . . if, after the trial has begun in his presence, he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present and leaves the court free to proceed with the trial in like manner and with like effect as if he were present. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. at 455 [1912] (emphasis added).
Some state laws provide for automatic retrial of fugitives who are arrested after being convicted in absentia.[29]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia

It seems it cannot legally be done.

Too bad. Thanks for the info.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I don't want a rigged trial.

I'm skeptical about the fairness of any trial that Snowden might be brought to.

Because you keep saying you do not think he can get a fair trial...when I see little doubt that he will get one.



Really! I think you do. If you want a fair trial...let him come back. He will get a fair trial. He will have a fine defense team...and the prosecution will have to prove their case to a jury.

I do not want a rigged trial...I want a fair trial.




Why?

Despite me giving you a list of shortcomings in the American Justice system, none of which you even attempted to address, instead you went on about freedom of speech which is totally irrelevant. With you it's a mixture of lalala I can't hear you and blind faith repeated ad nauseam.

No, Izzy...I try to reply to anything worthwhile.

You simply have a grudge against the United States...and your items have nothing to do with whether or not Snowden can receive a fair trial here in America.

He can.

You sound like someone who also does not want a fair trial. You want a rigged trial.

I'm not going to play that game.

I want a FAIR trial.

He is charged with specific charges...and I want him tried fairly on those charges. I am confident he can obtain that.

Absolute nonsense.I listed legitimate concerns. You are incapable of addressing those concerns so you throw out insults.

My concerns went straight to the heart of Snowden getting a fair trial. You can't answer that so you spread lies and smears in a vain attempt to kick up a smoke screen and avoid dealing with the truth.

Clearly there is no point discussing this with you because all you can do is repeat yourself and stick your head in the sand.

The fact is you're motivated by purely partisan considerations. You think the invasion of Iraq was wrong because a Republican president did it. You also want Snowden to get what you laughingly refer to as a "fair trial" because a Democratic president was in control when he made his revelations.

You can't see the actual issues involved. Truth is, if a Democratic president had invaded Iraq you'd be all for it, and if Snowden had made his disclosures during Bush's tenure you'd be all for prosecuting Bush and giving Snowden the Congressional medal of honour.

Reason doesn't come into it which is why you can't debate matters just use your jaded broken record and mud slinging techniques.

Unfortunately and as you said yourself, the US cannot try him in abstentia... So no trial is on the horizon, fair or not.

Izzy...you are lost in your anger and hatred toward America.

You have given absolutely no "legitimate concern" to bring the ability of the United States to give Edward Snowden a fair trial into question.

Your problem, as I see it, is that you do not want a fair trial...you want a rigged one.

That is not going to happen. IF he comes back to the United States...he will be tried...and it will be a fair trail rather than the rigged one you, and some others, apparently want.

I agree, Olivier. That is the way things stand right now...and I would not be surprised to see that it stays that way for a very, very long time.

Alright. At least you're not holding your breath... :-)

It has been published today (answer by the Federal Chancellery to a parliamentary request) that the BND (foreign secret service) invites every year, since2001, the heads and leading agents of foreign secret services to the Munich Oktoberfest. Per person, this is calculated with 40 to 50 € = four large beers or three beers and half a chicken.

Neither names/ranks nor numbers were given ... due to security reasons.

Again more mudslinging, because you are incapable of addressing the issue. I have given you legitimate concerns about your justice system. Thomas has spelled out why a "fair trial" is impossible, namely the state appointed judge can rule all of Snowden's defence inadmissible due to security considerations.

Your definition of "fair trial" is one that no right thinking person could accept.

Bradley Manning did not get a fair trial, he got thirty years an excessive punitive punishment designed to deter whistleblowers, it had absolutely nothing to do with justice.

I am being much, much, much more courteous to you...than you are being to me, Izzy. If there is mudslinging going on...you are doing it.



I am totally capable of addressing every issue. None of the "legitimate concerns" you have about our justice system rises to the level of showing that Snowden cannot get a fair trial.

NONE of them.

Bring up the single one that logically leads to "therefore Snowden cannot get a fair trial"...your single strongest case that shows Snowden cannot get a fair trial.

We'll discuss it right here.



Thomas has not spelled out why a fair trial is impossible. Those sort of rulings happen in MANY, MANY fair trials...not only here, but I suspect over in England also.

Allow me to say this again: RULINGS ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DEFENSE HAPPEN IN MANY, MANY FAIR TRIALS. They are a part of the process...a part of the fairness.

Some defenses are allowed...some are not.

If the judge rules the defense inadmissible...the ruling can be appealed...and then appealed again...up to the Supreme Court.

A defendant is not allowed to invent a defense...and for you to suppose that can be done...indicates you are not interested in a fair trial...you are interested in a rigged one.



My definition of a fair trail is one every thinking person would accept...unless that person has a reason for wanting a rigged trial and is unwilling to acknowledge that he/she has that reason.





Bradley Manning got a fair trial. You may not agree with the verdict...but he got a fair trial. Snowden will get a fair trial if he returns to the United States.



It had everything to do with justice. You are just angry because you do not agree with the verdict...or the sentence.

So you want a rigged trial, because any trial where the defendant is not allowed to defend themselves cannot be described as fair.