Arraignment
Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. In response to arraignment, in some jurisdictions, the accused is expected to enter a plea; in other jurisdictions, no plea is required.
This is where your Lawyer assists in getting you released if there may be a trial.
This is for KY:
You have a right to a preliminary hearing within 10-days if you are in custody and within 20-days if you are out of custody . A continuance will likely mean that you asked to âwaive timesâ which means to waive the number of days they have to hold your preliminary hearing
Three weeks would be longer than the law states.
Do we have reason to believe there was no preliminary hearing during those 3 weeks?
Do we have reason to believe there was when nothing was mentioned if there was? That is my question. Normally an article will say or give an arraignment date. I didnât see one.
If you mean whatâs in this thread, these uscca aftermath things always leave out a lot of detailsâŠI donât even see enough information to look up information about the case.
I donât think itâs fair to seemingly assume something was done illegally just because this very brief open question format doesnât specifically state when the preliminary hearing happened
For example, I also donât think it would be fair to assume the defendent was a convicted domestic abuser who is prohibited from possessing a firearm just because it wasnât specifically mentioned that he isnât.
The Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is in the 6th Amendment. But note that government regularly ignores the plain text of the Constitution, so whether there is a guarantee of a speedy trial in the world in which we live is anybodyâs guess.
Hereâs the text of the 6th Amendment:
âIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.â
I am probably jaded. Been through and seen enough in my life to realize ppl will screw you over because they hold the position of authority or because they like doing it. You are free to remain innocent of what and why ppl do things.
I have no doubt about why people do things, but, I still try not to see things that arenât there
Someone said it earlier. There has to be more to the story!
Iâm sure there is more to the storyâŠwhich probably gives us insight into why 3 weeks was taken for investigation. A lot of story to fill in and corroborate
It not being there is why Im asking the question! Nothing is said about it. If I recall correctly the article said he was held until the end of the investigation thats it! Itâs either piss poor reporting or a violation of habeas corpus. I hope itâs piss poor reporting but we donât have enough data to know.
Maybe I"m missing something, what article and reporting are you referring to? Iâm just going off the initial talking point the USCCA posted which isnât really an article/reporting from my viewâŠjust a conversation starter.
Letâs start with:
What is the name of the person we are discussing? So we can look up all this stuff that is just being speculated about so far
This is getting old Nathan. You believe what you want and I will stop talking to you about it. I think I would rather pick fly sh1t out of pepper than continue this.
All well and good. And in the world we live in, if you feel that your rights to a speedy trial have been infringed in violation of the Barker v Wingo test, you get to spend your money on your lawyerâs arguments, until you run out of money. The state, on the other hand, has a staff of lawyers to draw from, all paid for by a virtually unlimited warchest of tax dollars. In the real world, where the litigant asserting a right draws from limited personal funds and the government opposing the assertion of Constitutional rights has an unlimited pool of legal resources, itâs a legitimate question to ask whether you really have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial.
So, if they did not know he committted a crime - not investigated to show he did - why arrest him for a crime and hold him without being put before a judge to be arraigned and given a bail option? The only reason I can reasonably conclude is to punish the firearm owner. We have seen that too many times to know that if you are in the wrong jurisdiction, the DA will screw and not care about your innocence, thereby costing you a ton of money, lots of time and possibly loss of your job, friends, etc. What does the DA lose? As we have seen, nothing.
I havenât seen that this is the case. Is there a source stating this?
Who was he, even?
To me, this indicates he was charged with a crime. I suspect, in front of a judge. I see nothing to give a reasonable indication otherwise.
You just said he spent 3 weeks in jail while they were investigating the incident. That means to me they do not know whether or not he committed a crime. If he did, and was charged, he should have been arraigned, and not spent 3 weeks in jail awaiting arraignment.
Investigation generally continues to happen after arraignment. They donât do the entirety of the investigation before initial hearing/charges/arraignment