Boston Judge refused to dismiss charges against Antifa, jailed lawyer who argued with him

[redleghunter]

Saturday, 36 people were arrested in connection with Boston’s “straight-pride parade.” Only two of those people were part of the parade itself. The rest were part of the Antifa counter-protest. As you can see in this arrest log, about half of the people arrested had serious charges against them including assault against police officers. Four officers were injured Saturday and, as of Wednesday, had not returned to duty. The other half were arrested for disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest, i.e. relatively minor charges.

Tuesday, half of the arrestees were brought before Boston Judge Richard Sinnott. DA Rachel Rollins asked Sinnott to drop charges against 9 people who were arrested Saturday on lesser charges, i.e. resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Rollins, who is considered a progressive DA, has a standing commitment not to prosecute a list of 15 crimes which include disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. She wanted these counter-protesters to walk.

But Judge Sinnott only agreed to drop charges against two of the nine. That’s very unusual because a judge generally doesn’t decide who will get prosecuted. Tuesday evening DA Rollins published a statement on Facebook criticizing Judge Sinnott’s refusal to dismiss the cases:

More at link: Boston Judge refused to dismiss charges against Antifa, jailed lawyer who argued with him

 

[JIMINZ]

If I was the Judge in this case, I would hold DA Rollins in Contempt of Court for her going on Facebook and criticizing a decision from the Bench.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If I was the Judge in this case, I would hold DA Rollins in Contempt of Court for her going on Facebook and criticizing a decision from the Bench.

In New Zealand, if there is a legitimate disagreement about a judge's decision, it can go to the Appeals Court. If a judge's conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate, a complaint can be placed with the Chief Judge.

Going to social media before taking the appropriate optional steps to deal with a disagreement over a judge's decision, or a complaint against the judge, is to use public opinion and petty politics to try and discredit a judge so the complainant can get her way.

It seems on the surface of things, the ones whom the Judge refused to let off, had been involved in a protest where police officers were assaulted and injured. Even if these people did not personally assault anyone, they were part of a group that did, so according to law, all members of a group are equally responsible for what individual members do, and so, the judge, according to law, has the right to uphold the charges; but the DA has the right to appeal through the normal legal process.

But she did not decide to do that, but went the political discrediting of the judge which I think that she is morally and legally wrong, and I would not be surprised if she lost her job over it.

 

[JIMINZ]

Rollins, who is considered a progressive DA, has a standing commitment not to prosecute a list of 15 crimes which include disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. She wanted these counter-protesters to walk.

If the Law is on the books, she is bound by the Law to Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law if there are grounds for a trial.

It is not up to any DA to decide which Laws they will Prosecute, she just wants convictions on he record, the enforcement of the Law be Darned.

I would press to have her Voted out of Office at the earliest date.

 

[Hank77]

But she did not decide to do that, but went the political discrediting of the judge which I think that she is morally and legally wrong, and I would not be surprised if she lost her job over it.

In the US each state determines how their D.A.s and judges are installed in their positions and how they can be dismissed.
An elected official can't just be fired, there are recalls from the citizenry, there is impeachment, etc.
I think...
The state of MA elects their D.A.s. Their judges are appointed by the Governor.

 

[Hank77]

If the Law is on the books, she is bound by the Law to Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law if there are grounds for a trial.

I don't think you are correct about this. D.A.s have a lot of leeway. D.A.s make deals all the time. They don't have to prosecute to the Fullest extent of the law. i.e. Turn State's witness and get off without spending one day in prison for the crime they committed.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't think you are correct about this. D.A.s have a lot of leeway. D.A.s make deals all the time. They don't have to prosecute to the Fullest extent of the law. i.e. Turn State's witness and get off without spending one day in prison for the crime they committed.

This is not a case of deal making from what I can tell. This seems to be a case in which charges were brought and then the DA wished to drop them. A DA absolutely has leeway in deciding who to prosecute but does a DA, once having committed by charging a defendant, have total discretion in dropping those charges? I'm no lawyer so I don't know the answer to that but obviously this judge thinks the DA by bringing charges has lost sole control of the process.

 

[Hank77]

This is not a case of deal making from what I can tell. This seems to be a case in which charges were brought and then the DA wished to drop them. A DA absolutely has leeway in deciding who to prosecute but does a DA, once having committed by charging a defendant, have total discretion in dropping those charges? I'm no lawyer so I don't know the answer to that but obviously this judge thinks the DA by bringing charges has lost sole control of the process.

I agree with you. The charges were brought before the court; now only the judge can decide to drop the charges.

 

[Gigimo]

Saturday, 36 people were arrested in connection with Boston’s “straight-pride parade.” Only two of those people were part of the parade itself. The rest were part of the Antifa counter-protest. As you can see in this arrest log, about half of the people arrested had serious charges against them including assault against police officers. Four officers were injured Saturday and, as of Wednesday, had not returned to duty. The other half were arrested for disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest, i.e. relatively minor charges.

Tuesday, half of the arrestees were brought before Boston Judge Richard Sinnott. DA Rachel Rollins asked Sinnott to drop charges against 9 people who were arrested Saturday on lesser charges, i.e. resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Rollins, who is considered a progressive DA, has a standing commitment not to prosecute a list of 15 crimes which include disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. She wanted these counter-protesters to walk.

But Judge Sinnott only agreed to drop charges against two of the nine. That’s very unusual because a judge generally doesn’t decide who will get prosecuted. Tuesday evening DA Rollins published a statement on Facebook criticizing Judge Sinnott’s refusal to dismiss the cases:

More at link: Boston Judge refused to dismiss charges against Antifa, jailed lawyer who argued with him

Here this is related and it seems this Judge doesn't have any tolerance for the Antifa fascists/thugs either: ‘Stay out of Boston,’ judge tells anti-Straight Pride protesters

 

[redleghunter]

Here this is related and it seems this Judge doesn't have any tolerance for the Antifa fascists/thugs either: ‘Stay out of Boston,’ judge tells anti-Straight Pride protesters

Lol “get out of my town!”

 

[JIMINZ]

I don't think you are correct about this. D.A.s have a lot of leeway. D.A.s make deals all the time. They don't have to prosecute to the Fullest extent of the law. i.e. Turn State's witness and get off without spending one day in prison for the crime they committed.

Those are acceptable things in law and DA's do it all the time, what I was referring to was, she said.

Rollins, who is considered a progressive DA, has a standing commitment not to prosecute a list of 15 crimes which include disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. She wanted these counter-protesters to walk.

A DA should not to just be able to throw a blanket over things they feel they don't want to Prosecute, and let them walk.

If the Cop is doing their job and someone resists arrest, they should be prosecuted, if I was a Cop and I arrested someone and the DA said I just not going to Prosecute I would be PO'ed.

What if the Police in mass knowing that she isn't going to deal with these particular crimes, left off ever charging them, would the Police get into trouble for not arresting people.

Putting it into a Christian Perspective.
We all know there is a Penalty for SIN, Death, Jesus paid the price for us.

A crime is a crime because there is a Law against it, there is a penalty for that crime and it should be Prosecuted by the DA.

This DA has essentially re written the Law books and left out what she didn't think should be a Law, that is a Legislative Power.

 

[JIMINZ]

Lol “get out of my town!”

It's about time someone in Authority said,
"This town ain't big enough for the both of us".....pardner.

 

[redleghunter]

Those are acceptable things in law and DA's do it all the time, what I was referring to was, she said.



A DA should not to just be able to throw a blanket over things they feel they don't want to Prosecute, and let them walk.

If the Cop is doing their job and someone resists arrest, they should be prosecuted, if I was a Cop and I arrested someone and the DA said I just not going to Prosecute I would be PO'ed.

What if the Police in mass knowing that she isn't going to deal with these particular crimes, left off ever charging them, would the Police get into trouble for not arresting people.

Putting it into a Christian Perspective.
We all know there is a Penalty for SIN, Death, Jesus paid the price for us.

A crime is a crime because there is a Law against it, there is a penalty for that crime and it should be Prosecuted by the DA.

This DA has essentially re written the Law books and left out what she didn't think should be a Law, that is a Legislative Power.

The DA attempt to basically say in blanket fashion they will not prosecute certain laws on the books. Just another example of the lawlessness in these liberal cities along with being sanctuary cities.

 

[Hank77]

A DA should not to just be able to throw a blanket over things they feel they don't want to Prosecute, and let them walk.

OK, gotcha.

If the Cop is doing their job and someone resists arrest, they should be prosecuted, if I was a Cop and I arrested someone and the DA said I just not going to Prosecute I would be PO'ed.

This does happen and I'm sure it does upset the police.

This DA has essentially re written the Law books and left out what she didn't think should be a Law, that is a Legislative Power.

Yes, judges don't write laws.

The DA attempt to basically say in blanket fashion they will not prosecute certain laws on the books.

Thank goodness they do decide not to prosecute certain laws on the books, or in some states, etc. we'd still have to have someone walking in front of our cars with a lantern (the law doesn't specify "unless the car has headlights") lol

 

[Gigimo]

Lol “get out of my town!”

Can't say as if I blame him, you get tired of stupid stuff after awhile and don't want to have to put up with it.

 

[redleghunter]

Can't say as if I blame him, you get tired of stupid stuff after awhile and don't want to have to put up with it.

Judge just made a statement on how his town won’t be bullied. Good for him

 

[HannahT]

By compelling arraignment in every case, the judge punished the exercise of individuals’ First Amendment right to protest. At my request, prosecutors used the discretion constitutionally allocated to the executive branch to triage cases and use our resources most effectively to protect public safety.

Personally, I think there is more to the story than what is written. That's my feeling.

Today everything has to be over the top melodramatic, and so this punished for the right to protest? That part doesn't fly to me. He seemed to excuse some of the people, and maybe they got caught up in things...and didn't need to be there. I've seen videos of some of these so call protests, and they do go way out of the line of the defintion. Others don't.

I guess I don't understand the process well enough. If the DA has to come to the judge to tell him they have decided to drop charges, and they need some judge to sign off on it? It seems to me there is also some leeway on whether the judge will agree to that or not. Yet, you get the impression from the DA he has no right to do that. That part confuses me.

It could very well be that this judge doesn't wish Boston to turn into circumstances like Portland is experiencing. They seem to be failing at the 'public safety' part.

Then they had one guy they were interviewing that claimed he was arrested unjustly, and his story that he told - if accurate - seems to back him up. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, his case wasn't dismissed due to the fact he refused to come into the courtroom. Innocent people that want to get on their life doesn't do that.

This whole thing just doesn't pass the smell test for me. I have to wonder what else is missing.

 

[redleghunter]

Personally, I think there is more to the story than what is written. That's my feeling.

Today everything has to be over the top melodramatic, and so this punished for the right to protest? That part doesn't fly to me. He seemed to excuse some of the people, and maybe they got caught up in things...and didn't need to be there. I've seen videos of some of these so call protests, and they do go way out of the line of the defintion. Others don't.

I guess I don't understand the process well enough. If the DA has to come to the judge to tell him they have decided to drop charges, and they need some judge to sign off on it? It seems to me there is also some leeway on whether the judge will agree to that or not. Yet, you get the impression from the DA he has no right to do that. That part confuses me.

It could very well be that this judge doesn't wish Boston to turn into circumstances like Portland is experiencing. They seem to be failing at the 'public safety' part.

Then they had one guy they were interviewing that claimed he was arrested unjustly, and his story that he told - if accurate - seems to back him up. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, his case wasn't dismissed due to the fact he refused to come into the courtroom. Innocent people that want to get on their life doesn't do that.

This whole thing just doesn't pass the smell test for me. I have to wonder what else is missing.

The report indicated there were several booked for assault on police officers and resisting arrest.

 

[HannahT]

The report indicated there were several booked for assault on police officers and resisting arrest.

I got the impression that the DA wasn't speaking of the people that assaulted police. They need to be charged. Assault is serious.

The DA is acting like the Judge is acting against the law by not signing off on the orders to drop the prosecution on those - I would assume - up on lesser charges. It's not clear to me if he is compelled to sign them by her statement. That's what she is presenting so far. That makes no sense.

I always doubt the integrity of someone that is going to claim: punished for the right to protest. They need to put the emotional aspect aside, and speak from a professional standpoint. She failed to do that, and that tells me something is going on.

People don't get arrested JUST for protesting. It's normally their actions WHILE they are protesting that gets them into hot water. If they found there is no evidence showing they didn't break the law during the protest? Say that. She didn't. That's fishy. If their actions were not enough to waste the court's/society time? Say that. She didn't. Her lack of professionalism is a red flag to me.

If we had decent journalists? The holes in this story would be cleaned up.

 

[redleghunter]

If we had decent journalists? The holes in this story would be cleaned up.

You are spot on here.