Blog:Main/The Codefendant Demurrer at its most basic - Revision history

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 05:20, March 5, 2014

2014-03-05T05:20:21Z

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 05:19, March 5, 2014

2014-03-05T05:19:14Z

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 04:32, March 5, 2014

2014-03-05T04:32:30Z

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants on the same indictment if the co-defendan..."

2014-03-05T04:31:42Z

Created page with "Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants on the same indictment if the co-defendan..."

New page

Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants on the same indictment if the co-defendants were charged with different crimes. The legislature was explicitly concerned about fairness to defendants. In 1983, a law was passed that allowed prosecutors to do just that, but simultaneously giving defendants the right to ask for separate trials. Just a few years later, that law was repealed, and while a new statute took its place, depriving the defendants of the guarantee of separate trials if requested, the language authorizing the joint indictment of co-defendants, when the charges aren't the same, wasn't included.

Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X? And if so, isn't it unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?

There are other arguments that can be raised in support of dismissing such an indictment. And if you want to see the latest demurrer (substantially developed since the December 2013 OCDLA conference), just e-mail me.

Fortune favors the bold.
{{wl-publish: 2014-03-04 20:31:42 -0800 | Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer.  Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants in the same indictment if the co-defendants were charged with different crimes.  The legislature was explicitly concerned about fairness to defendants.  In 1983, a law was passed that allowed prosecutors to do just that, but it simultaneously gave defendants the right to ask for separate trials.  Just a few years later, that law was repealed, and while a new statute took its place, depriving the defendants of the guarantee of separate trials if requested, the language authorizing the joint indictment of co-defendants, when the charges aren't the same, wasn't included.
-Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X?  And if so, isn't it unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?
+Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X?  And if so, isn't it once again unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?
 There are other arguments that can be raised in support of dismissing such an indictment.  And if you want to see the latest demurrer (substantially developed since the December 2013 OCDLA conference), just e-mail me.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:19, March 5, 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants on the same indictment if the co-defendants were charged with different crimes. The legislature was explicitly concerned about fairness to defendants. In 1983, a law was passed that allowed prosecutors to do just that, but it simultaneously gave defendants the right to ask for separate trials. Just a few years later, that law was repealed, and while a new statute took its place, depriving the defendants of the guarantee of separate trials if requested, the language authorizing the joint indictment of co-defendants, when the charges aren't the same, wasn't included.	+	Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants in the same indictment if the co-defendants were charged with different crimes. The legislature was explicitly concerned about fairness to defendants. In 1983, a law was passed that allowed prosecutors to do just that, but it simultaneously gave defendants the right to ask for separate trials. Just a few years later, that law was repealed, and while a new statute took its place, depriving the defendants of the guarantee of separate trials if requested, the language authorizing the joint indictment of co-defendants, when the charges aren't the same, wasn't included.

	Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X? And if so, isn't it unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?		Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X? And if so, isn't it unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, March 5, 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants on the same indictment if the co-defendants were charged with different crimes. The legislature was explicitly concerned about fairness to defendants. In 1983, a law was passed that allowed prosecutors to do just that, but simultaneously ~~giving~~ defendants the right to ask for separate trials. Just a few years later, that law was repealed, and while a new statute took its place, depriving the defendants of the guarantee of separate trials if requested, the language authorizing the joint indictment of co-defendants, when the charges aren't the same, wasn't included.	+	Here's what you need to know about the co-defendant demurrer. Prior to 1983, prosecutors were prohibited from charging co-defendants on the same indictment if the co-defendants were charged with different crimes. The legislature was explicitly concerned about fairness to defendants. In 1983, a law was passed that allowed prosecutors to do just that, but it simultaneously gave defendants the right to ask for separate trials. Just a few years later, that law was repealed, and while a new statute took its place, depriving the defendants of the guarantee of separate trials if requested, the language authorizing the joint indictment of co-defendants, when the charges aren't the same, wasn't included.

	Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X? And if so, isn't it unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?		Now, normally, when the status quo is X, and a law passes converting X into Y, and then the law is repealed, don't we go back to X? And if so, isn't it unlawful for codefendants to be jointly indicted if the charges don't match?